Australia — Defence and Industry Conference 2011

Speech by Min­is­ter for Defence Stephen Smith MP Defence and Indus­try Con­fer­ence 2011 Open­ing Address Con­ven­tion Cen­tre, Ade­laide
Wednes­day 29 June 2011
Thank you Mark (Reynolds, Head of Defence Materiel Organ­i­sa­tion Com­mer­cial and Indus­try Pro­grams) for that intro­duc­tion.
I thank the organ­is­ers of the 2011 Defence and Indus­try Con­fer­ence for the invi­ta­tion to open your Con­fer­ence.
I acknowl­edge the Pre­mier of South Aus­tralia, Mike Rann, my Min­is­te­r­i­al col­leagues Jason Clare, Min­is­ter for Defence Materiel, Kevin Foley, South Aus­tralian Min­is­ter for Defence Indus­tries and Robert Knight, North­ern Ter­ri­to­ry Min­is­ter for Defence Sup­port, Indus­try rep­re­sen­ta­tives, Defence Offi­cials, mem­bers of the Aus­tralian Defence Force, ladies and gen­tle­men.

This year’s Con­fer­ence is the sev­en­teenth Defence and Indus­try Con­fer­ence. Over 2,000 del­e­gates are expect­ed to attend, with 75% of del­e­gates from indus­try.

The Con­fer­ence is an impor­tant forum for exchang­ing infor­ma­tion and ideas, and you should make the most of this oppor­tu­ni­ty.

For Indus­try, this is an oppor­tu­ni­ty to dis­cuss with Defence offi­cials the acqui­si­tion and sus­tain­ment invest­ment oppor­tu­ni­ties that Force 2030 will gen­er­ate in com­ing years.

It is also an oppor­tu­ni­ty to present your ideas, con­cepts and inno­va­tions, with this year’s Trade Exhi­bi­tion show­cas­ing more than 200 exhibitors.

The Rela­tion­ship Between Defence and Indus­try

The rela­tion­ship between Defence and Indus­try is essen­tial to sup­port the work of our men and women in uni­form.

In Afghanistan, I have seen this equip­ment in use, sav­ing lives and under­pin­ning the fight against the Tal­iban.

At the start of this year, in response to nat­ur­al dis­as­ters across Aus­tralia, in New Zealand and in Japan, mem­bers of the Aus­tralian Defence Force con­duct­ed res­cues, evac­u­a­tions, recov­ery work, engi­neer­ing and com­mu­ni­ty sup­port activ­i­ties.

To suc­ceed in these roles, the men and women of the Aus­tralian Defence Force are depen­dent on Defence and Indus­try work­ing togeth­er to deliv­er and main­tain the equip­ment they use and need.

It is essen­tial that we get this rela­tion­ship right, and deliv­er and sup­port this equip­ment, now and into the future.

This is a crit­i­cal ele­ment of our nation­al secu­ri­ty.

Pro­cure­ment, main­te­nance and sus­tain­ment of capa­bil­i­ty, how­ev­er, is not with­out very seri­ous chal­lenges.

I have spo­ken pre­vi­ous­ly about some of these chal­lenges.

That is why Defence Materiel Min­is­ter Clare and I have announced impor­tant reforms to improve Defence’s per­for­mance. It is why we will con­tin­ue to announce and effect fur­ther reform.

Reforms to date apply to Defence’s bud­get­ing process, to capa­bil­i­ty acqui­si­tion and devel­op­ment, and to the main­te­nance of equip­ment in ser­vice.

Reform – The Defence Bud­get

The need to reform Defence’s plan­ning and bud­get­ing process­es was high­light­ed in this year’s Bud­get.

The Bud­get saw $1.6 bil­lion in Defence fund­ing hand­ed back to the Gov­ern­ment in 2010-11.

Of the $1.6 bil­lion, $1.1 bil­lion was relat­ed to cap­i­tal fund­ing that has been rephased to bet­ter align with updat­ed fore­casts of Defence and Industry’s abil­i­ty to spend the fund­ing Gov­ern­ment has pro­vid­ed.

At the time of the Bud­get, this $1.1 bil­lion was com­prised of $815 mil­lion of Approved Major Cap­i­tal Invest­ment Pro­gram fund­ing and $295 mil­lion of Major Cap­i­tal Facil­i­ties Pro­gram fund­ing.

When I was advised that a sig­nif­i­cant under­spend was like­ly in 2010-11, I direct­ed Defence to con­duct a thor­ough reassess­ment of its bud­getary fore­casts and esti­ma­tions across 2011-12 and the for­ward esti­mates. The Sec­re­tary and Chief Finan­cial Offi­cer will report to me on this before the end of the cal­en­dar year.

It is essen­tial to improve Defence’s Bud­get esti­ma­tion process­es.

A $1.6 bil­lion under­spend is a sig­nif­i­cant fail­ure in Defence’s plan­ning and bud­get­ing process­es.

And this does not include the near­ly $300 mil­lion of 2010-11 funds used to acquire the addi­tion­al C‑17 air­craft and the amphibi­ous ship Largs Bay.

Fund­ing for Defence must be based on real­is­tic and reli­able fore­casts.

In 2011-12, the Defence Depart­men­tal bud­get will total $27.5 bil­lion. This equates to 7.6 per cent of Aus­tralian Gov­ern­ment out­lays and 1.9 per cent of Gross Domes­tic Prod­uct.

We have a respon­si­bil­i­ty to ensure that the Defence dol­lar is wise­ly spent and that it is seen to be spent wise­ly. For the first time in many years, per­haps for the first time in the mod­ern era, real para­me­ters have been imposed on the acqui­si­tion of capa­bil­i­ty: by the 2009 White Paper, by the Strate­gic Reform Pro­gram and, impor­tant­ly, by a capped Bud­get.

More than ever, we need to ensure that we have the Bud­get­ing dis­ci­pline, the rigour and the account­abil­i­ty to meet our nation­al secu­ri­ty objec­tives.

We must con­tin­ue to pur­sue the Strate­gic Reform Pro­gram to ensure Defence is effi­cient in deliv­er­ing nation­al secu­ri­ty capa­bil­i­ty for Gov­ern­ment.

The Strate­gic Reform pro­gram will deliv­er over $20 bil­lion in sav­ings to rein­vest in the deliv­ery of Force 2030.

Ear­ly progress has been good, but more can and must be done.

Reform – Shared Ser­vices

The Gov­ern­ment has announced a sec­ond phase of Strate­gic Reform Pro­gram sav­ings pri­mar­i­ly relat­ed to shared ser­vices design and imple­men­ta­tion.

The pur­pose of shared ser­vices reform is to ratio­nalise Defence cor­po­rate over­head require­ments in a way that does not reduce sup­port of oper­a­tions or capa­bil­i­ty devel­op­ment.

Reforms to shared ser­vices and oth­er effi­cien­cy mea­sures means that Defence can reduce the over­all fore­cast pub­lic ser­vice work­force growth by 1000 over the next three years.

Sav­ings from these reduc­tions will also be returned to the Bud­get.

There will be no reduc­tions to the Aus­tralian Defence Force mil­i­tary work­force as a result of these changes.

Giv­en the pri­or­i­ty accord­ed to main­tain­ing sup­port for oper­a­tions, improv­ing Navy sus­tain­ment and enhanc­ing capa­bil­i­ty devel­op­ment, the Joint Oper­a­tions Com­mand, the Navy and the Capa­bil­i­ty Devel­op­ment Group will be exempt from these addi­tion­al reduc­tions to their fore­cast pub­lic ser­vice work­force. This reform is being under­tak­en as part of the Strate­gic Reform Pro­gram, using its gov­er­nance and over­sight process­es, includ­ing over­sight by the inde­pen­dent Defence Strate­gic Reform Advi­so­ry Board chaired by Mr George Pap­pas.

Reform – The Black Review

Fur­ther reforms to the Defence Bud­get­ing process will be includ­ed in the com­ing peri­od when I announce the Government’s response to the Review of the Defence Account­abil­i­ty Frame­work, known as the Black Review.

The Black Review is the first com­pre­hen­sive review to exam­ine per­son­al and insti­tu­tion­al account­abil­i­ty in Defence.

The Black Review and the Government’s response will out­line how improved account­abil­i­ty can improve Defence per­for­mance by ensur­ing that the dif­fer­ent parts of Defence work togeth­er much more effec­tive­ly and with greater account­abil­i­ty at both per­son­al and insti­tu­tion­al lev­el to pro­duce bet­ter out­comes.

The Black Review will as well build on the pro­cure­ment reforms that I and Min­is­ter Clare have already announced.

Reform – Account­abil­i­ty and Pro­cure­ment

In ear­ly May, Min­is­ter Clare and I announced our ini­tial account­abil­i­ty and pro­cure­ment reforms for Defence.

As a con­se­quence, as a mat­ter of pri­or­i­ty, Defence is accel­er­at­ing the imple­men­ta­tion of all of the Kin­naird and Mor­timer rec­om­men­da­tions pre­vi­ous­ly agreed by Gov­ern­ment.

This will pro­vide greater con­fi­dence in the even­tu­al suc­cess of projects.

Already we are see­ing signs of improve­ment, with around 20% to 25% reduc­tion in slip­page of sched­ul­ing of those projects caught by the Kin­naird and Mor­timer reforms as com­pared with ear­li­er projects not sub­ject to that rigour.

Reform – Minor Projects

The Gov­ern­ment is also intro­duc­ing new rigour into the man­age­ment of so called ‘minor’ projects, imple­ment­ing a two-pass approval sys­tem for minor cap­i­tal equip­ment projects val­ued between $8 mil­lion and $20 mil­lion.

There are over 100 minor cap­i­tal projects under­way and in 2010-11 and the planned bud­get for minor cap­i­tal projects is around $150 mil­lion.

$150 mil­lion is not ‘minor’ sum to you or to the gen­er­al pub­lic.

This is an area of Defence expen­di­ture long over­looked.

The tax­pay­er has a right to expect that these projects will be man­aged as effi­cient­ly and effec­tive­ly as more cost­ly projects. And so does indus­try.

The two-pass approval sys­tem has been suc­cess­ful in improv­ing the bud­get, sched­ule and capa­bil­i­ty deliv­ery of major projects.

This same rigour will now be applied to minor cap­i­tal projects, includ­ing a for­mal busi­ness case for two-stage approval by the Min­is­ter for Defence.

Reform – Ear­ly Warn­ing and Indi­ca­tors

The Gov­ern­ment is also imple­ment­ing an Ear­ly Warn­ing and Indi­ca­tor sys­tem to pre­vent prob­lems ear­ly in the life of a project.

Defence assess­es that 80 per cent of prob­lems with Defence capa­bil­i­ty projects occur in the first 20 per cent of the project’s life.

There­fore we need ear­ly warn­ing in order to be able to take effec­tive pre­ven­ta­tive action.

A set of trig­gers has been estab­lished to give ear­ly warn­ing of projects which are or are at risk of run­ning late, being over bud­get or not deliv­er­ing the required capa­bil­i­ty.

The Min­is­ter for Defence, the Min­is­ter for Defence Materiel, the Sec­re­tary of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force are advised when these trig­gers are acti­vat­ed.

When a trig­ger is acti­vat­ed Defence will con­duct an inter­nal review of the project and rec­om­mend whether a full diag­nos­tic exam­i­na­tion, known as a Gate Review, should be con­duct­ed.

Reform – Enhanced Gate Review Process

The Gov­ern­ment is expand­ing the use of the Gate Review process for mature projects to ensure that the desired oper­a­tional capa­bil­i­ty is being deliv­ered.

Gate Reviews com­menced in 2009 for select­ed high val­ue and high­ly com­plex projects and have proven very effec­tive in the ear­ly iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and res­o­lu­tion of prob­lems.

We have also announced enhanced and more rig­or­ous report­ing to Gov­ern­ment on such high pri­or­i­ty projects.

Quar­ter­ly account­abil­i­ty reports to the Min­is­ter for Defence, the Min­is­ter for Defence Materiel, the Sec­re­tary of the Depart­ment of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force will be pro­vid­ed for des­ig­nat­ed key projects. To ensure account­abil­i­ty, the reports are to be for­mal­ly signed off by the Chief Finan­cial Offi­cer, the Chief Exec­u­tive Offi­cer of the Defence Materiel Organ­i­sa­tion, the Chief of the Capa­bil­i­ty Devel­op­ment Group and the rel­e­vant capa­bil­i­ty man­ag­er, gen­er­al­ly the rel­e­vant Ser­vice Chief.

This will improve account­abil­i­ty and alert senior Defence offi­cials and Gov­ern­ment to prob­lems in projects so that an appro­pri­ate reme­di­a­tion plan can be devel­oped ear­ly and act­ed on.

These reforms have a sin­gle cen­tral focus – pre­ven­tion not post mortems. It is most impor­tant to get projects right at the out­set and ear­ly on.

Ear­ly inter­ven­tion is always bet­ter than an exhaus­tive assess­ment well after the seeds of project dif­fi­cul­ty have been sown. We need to pre­vent prob­lems before they emerge and solve them as they emerge – pre­ven­tion not post mortems.

Reform – The Riz­zo Review

In the near future, fur­ther reform will also include the Government’s response to the Riz­zo Review into the Main­te­nance of Naval Ships.

In Feb­ru­ary, I announced the appoint­ment of an inde­pen­dent team of experts to devel­op a plan to address prob­lems in the repair and man­age­ment of the amphibi­ous and sup­port ship fleet led by Mr Paul Riz­zo.

Ear­ly advice from Mr Riz­zo points to a sys­tem­at­ic break­down over a long peri­od of time, includ­ing under resourced naval engi­neer­ing capa­bil­i­ties, inef­fi­cient indus­try con­tracts and inad­e­quate risk man­age­ment.

The recent Aus­tralian Nation­al Audit Office audit report on the Accep­tance into Ser­vice of Navy Capa­bil­i­ty also high­light­ed that the capa­bil­i­ty devel­op­ment sys­tem has not con­sis­tent­ly iden­ti­fied and respond­ed in a time­ly way to issues affect­ing Navy capa­bil­i­ty acqui­si­tion and sup­port.

Many of the seeds of the prob­lems we now face were sown long ago, and over time insuf­fi­cient resources have been allo­cat­ed to address materiel and per­son­nel short­falls since the ships were brought into ser­vice many years ago.

Mr Riz­zo is devel­op­ing a plan to address these prob­lems, to reform past prac­tices, and over­see ear­ly stage imple­men­ta­tion of the reforms.

This work is addi­tion­al to the new com­pre­hen­sive tran­si­tion plan I have asked Defence to pre­pare to ensure a smooth tran­si­tion to the intro­duc­tion of the Land­ing Heli­copter Dock ships in the mid­dle of the decade.

Reform – Projects of Con­cern Announce­ment

Today I am announc­ing fur­ther reforms: addi­tion­al pro­cure­ment reforms in the Projects of Con­cern process.

I make the cen­tral point at the out­set: the pub­lic pol­i­cy objec­tive is a suc­cess­ful project. The objec­tive is not for projects to end up on the Projects of Con­cern list, the objec­tive is to pre­vent and reme­di­ate.

The Project of Con­cern process was estab­lished by the Gov­ern­ment in 2008 to focus the atten­tion of Defence and indus­try on reme­di­at­ing projects with sig­nif­i­cant sched­ule, cost, capa­bil­i­ty or project man­age­ment chal­lenges.

The Min­is­ter for Defence Materiel has been work­ing close­ly with Defence, the Defence Materiel Organ­i­sa­tion and Indus­try to reform man­age­ment of Projects of Con­cern.

The reforms I am announc­ing today are the result of this work.

They include incen­tives for Indus­try to focus on resolv­ing projects of con­cern, and enhanc­ing account­abil­i­ty for projects on the list.

When a com­pa­ny has a project on the list, Gov­ern­ment and Defence will weight its per­for­mance in reme­di­at­ing the project when eval­u­at­ing that com­pa­nies ten­ders for oth­er projects.

In extreme cir­cum­stances this could result in com­pa­nies being exclud­ed from fur­ther ten­ders until the project is reme­di­at­ed.

We will also intro­duce a for­mal process for adding and remov­ing projects to the projects of con­cern list.

This for­mal process builds on the Enhanced Ear­ly Warn­ing and Gate Review process Min­is­ter Clare and I announced in May this year.

Defence and the Defence Materiel Organ­i­sa­tion will also devel­op for­mal reme­di­a­tion plans for all des­ig­nat­ed projects.

In the case of projects con­firmed as Projects of Con­cern, these reme­di­a­tion plans will:
• iden­ti­fy project reme­di­a­tion objec­tives;
• iden­ti­fy key mile­stones and the time­line for their achieve­ment; and
• detail the basis on which a project will be removed from the Project of Con­cern list.

Where DMO and Indus­try can­not agree a sat­is­fac­to­ry reme­di­a­tion strat­e­gy, DMO will pro­vide for­mal advice to Gov­ern­ment on whether the project should be can­celled.

For all exist­ing Projects of Con­cern, for­mal reme­di­a­tion plans will be devel­oped and agreed with Indus­try. These will include the basis on which these projects will be removed from the cur­rent list. Projects will only be tak­en off the list if the project is reme­di­at­ed in line with the plan or the project is can­celled.

Min­is­te­r­i­al involve­ment has been and will con­tin­ue to be a cor­ner­stone in dri­ving improved out­comes for Project of Con­cern projects.

Accord­ing­ly, as part of this enhanced process, the Min­is­ter for Defence Materiel will hold bian­nu­al meet­ings with Defence and Indus­try rep­re­sen­ta­tives respon­si­ble for projects of con­cern to ensure indi­vid­u­als are being held to account for the progress of reme­di­a­tion of the projects.

These reforms have been devel­oped in close con­sul­ta­tion with Indus­try by Min­is­ter Clare. I am also announc­ing today an update to the projects of con­cern list.

Two projects on the Projects of Con­cern list have been suc­cess­ful­ly intro­duced into ser­vice and have been removed from the list.

First­ly, Project Vig­i­lare is an air defence com­mand and con­trol sys­tem to give the Aus­tralian Defence Force improved sur­veil­lance and com­mu­ni­ca­tions capa­bil­i­ties.

It was added to the Project of Con­cern list in 2008 due to sched­ule delays.

The prime con­trac­tor, Boe­ing, has worked close­ly with Defence to address the issues and get the project back on track and is to be con­grat­u­lat­ed for its efforts.

Fol­low­ing suc­cess­ful test­ing, the sys­tem is now in oper­a­tional use by the Air Force.

Sec­ond­ly, the High Fre­quen­cy Mod­erni­sa­tion project which is pro­vid­ing Defence with a mod­ernised high fre­quen­cy com­mu­ni­ca­tions sys­tem.

It was added to the Project of Con­cern list in 2008 because of the fail­ure of the fixed net­work to meet project mile­stones.

A revised sched­ule was nego­ti­at­ed with the com­pa­ny and these mile­stones have now been achieved, over 12 months ahead of the revised sched­ule.

They are exam­ples of what can be achieved when Defence and Indus­try work close­ly togeth­er to address project chal­lenges.

Nine projects remain on the projects of con­cern list. The Gov­ern­ment, Defence and Indus­try will con­tin­ue to work to resolve the chal­lenges these projects are fac­ing.

Update to the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan

As well, today I am releas­ing, on-line, a sup­ple­ment to the on-line elec­tron­ic ver­sion of the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan 2009. This will be the third update of the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan since the 2009 Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan was released by my pre­de­ces­sor Min­is­ter Faulkn­er.

The sup­ple­ment out­lines the adjust­ments since I released the sec­ond Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan update in Decem­ber 2010.

The adjust­ments include removal of projects approved by Gov­ern­ment, such as the acqui­si­tion of 24 new naval com­bat heli­copters.

They also include the can­cel­la­tion of the project to acquire addi­tion­al C‑130J air­craft fol­low­ing the Government’s acqui­si­tion of an addi­tion­al C‑17 heavy lift air­craft.

Fur­ther adjust­ments reflect the ongo­ing refine­ment of the infor­ma­tion in the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan, in par­tic­u­lar vari­a­tions to sched­ule and cost.

In the com­ing weeks Defence will incor­po­rate these changes into the on-line Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan.

This ful­fils the Government’s com­mit­ment to con­tin­ue to update the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan.

While the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan has been enhanced fol­low­ing the Government’s response to advice from the inde­pen­dent Aus­tralian Strate­gic Pol­i­cy Insti­tute on ways to make it a more use­ful and more trans­par­ent doc­u­ment, I con­tin­ue to believe that it needs to be improved to be more use­ful to indus­try.

I have pre­vi­ous­ly dis­cussed with Indus­try rep­re­sen­ta­tives the need to improve the qual­i­ty of pre-first pass infor­ma­tion pro­vid­ed to Indus­try.

I will con­tin­ue to pur­sue this.

Reform – Over­pro­gram­ming of the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan

One ambi­tion is to reduce the lev­el of over pro­gram­ming in the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan.

The over­all Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan pro­gram is devel­oped tak­ing into account the avail­able fund­ing, the deliv­ery sched­ules for projects and the capac­i­ty of indus­try to devel­op and deliv­er the projects.

The prin­ci­ple behind over-pro­gram­ming is to pro­vide flex­i­bil­i­ty and to aid in ensur­ing that best use is made of avail­able fund­ing in the event of delays to the devel­op­ment of indi­vid­ual projects.

It is a delib­er­ate strat­e­gy to man­age the risk of projects being delayed, so that fund­ing can be divert­ed to oth­er high pri­or­i­ty Defence capa­bil­i­ty projects.

How­ev­er, what over pro­gram­ming real­ly means is that more projects are includ­ed in the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan than can actu­al­ly be realised.

This cre­ates false expec­ta­tions.

It means promis­ing more than we can deliv­er.

It also means, in effect, plan­ning for fail­ure.

All ver­sions of the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan since it was first pub­lished in 2001 have been over pro­grammed.

I do not believe that this is the best basis for Defence capa­bil­i­ty.

We can do bet­ter.

This process will be under­tak­en in con­junc­tion with the next Defence Plan­ning Guid­ance process.

Link­ing the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan to the Defence Plan­ning Guid­ance

As out­lined in the White Paper, the Defence Plan­ning Guid­ance is the Government’s pre­mier Defence plan­ning doc­u­ment between White Papers.

The Defence Plan­ning Guid­ance process aligns strate­gic guid­ance, capa­bil­i­ty deci­sions and resource plan­ning on an annu­al basis.

Future iter­a­tions of the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan will be more close­ly linked to this process.

Link­ing updates to the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan with the Defence Plan­ning Guid­ance will ensure that infor­ma­tion pro­vid­ed to Indus­try is based on the lat­est nation­al secu­ri­ty tasks set by Gov­ern­ment.

This also under­lines the fact that the Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan is pri­mar­i­ly a nation­al secu­ri­ty doc­u­ment. It is not of itself an indus­try pol­i­cy doc­u­ment, but guid­ance to indus­try.

A Defence Capa­bil­i­ty Plan based on the Government’s updat­ed Defence Plan­ning Guid­ance will pro­vide more mean­ing­ful, more reli­able infor­ma­tion for indus­try.

As well, a focus on projects which have been devel­oped for Gov­ern­ment con­sid­er­a­tion in accor­dance with the Kin­naird and Mor­timer process­es will ensure Indus­try has the best infor­ma­tion avail­able for projects which are approach­ing the acqui­si­tion stage.

A focus on get­ting com­plex and cost­ly Defence projects right at the begin­ning will reduce or avoid major prob­lems lat­er in the life of a project.

If we fail in our oblig­a­tion to get these projects right, it reflects bad­ly.

It reflects bad­ly not just on Gov­ern­ment, but on Defence itself and on the Defence Indus­try.

Most impor­tant­ly, if we fail to deliv­er enhanced capa­bil­i­ty to the Aus­tralian Defence Force, it is a bad out­come for our nation­al secu­ri­ty inter­ests.

There is no short­age of deter­mi­na­tion for Defence and Indus­try to do bet­ter.

Indi­vid­ual and col­lec­tive­ly we can all do bet­ter in this task.

And through our ongo­ing reform pro­gram we will.

Press release
Min­is­te­r­i­al Sup­port and Pub­lic Affairs,
Depart­ment of Defence,
Can­ber­ra, Aus­tralia

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →