Wirraway
7th Sep 2004, 04:55
Tues "The Australian"
Defence up in the air over F-111 policy
Robert Gottliebsen
September 07, 2004
WHILE the ALP is vulnerable in the election campaign because of the link between its industrial relations policies and interest rates, the Government's policy weakness is in air defence.
Unfortunately, air defence struggles to hit the headlines when compared to the popular issues but longer term it is more important because it goes to the heart of our security.
The risks we are taking in air defence were underlined by last month's amazing pre-election decision of the all-party Joint Standing Committee on Defence.
It recommended that the defence minister in the next parliament conduct an inquiry into the ability of the Australian Defence Force to maintain air superiority in our region to 2020 – the linchpin of our defence strategy .
It then went further and recommended that in 2006 the government should make a statement focusing on the delivery date for the replacement combat aircraft and the decision to retire the F-111 and, in the meantime, instruct the defence chiefs not to run down the F-111.
Clearly the defence chiefs have not convinced either the Government or the Labour members of the committee that they have the right answers.
The defence chiefs believe we should phase out the F-111 and concentrate on making the F/A-18A far more powerful with better equipment and backup network technology.
The danger in this strategy is that the F/A-18A struggles against the Russian-built Sukhoi, which is being bought by Indonesia, China and India and will have similar network equipment.
The alternative strategy is to improve the equipment inside and around the F-111.
The defence chiefs claimed that the F-111 was unreliable but they were aggressively challenged on this assumption.
In particular, shadow defence minister Kim Beazley believes they are likely to be wrong.
After reviewing the evidence and the experts' conflicting opinions, the all-party committee clearly believes there is at least a good case for extending the F111's life.
When it comes to replacing current aircraft the defence chiefs favour (but have not committed themselves to) the Joint Strike Fighter, which is in the early stage of development. The JSF has all the hazards of a new plane, including ballooning costs and possible long delays, which underlines the importance of making the right decision on the F-111. And many believe Australia should choose the F/A-22, another US plane which is already developed.
Writing in the ASPI Journal, RAAF chief Air Marshal Angus Houston concedes the popularity of the F/A-22 and says: "The F/A-22 will be the most outstanding fighter aircraft ever built. It may even represent the end of the line in manned fighters. Every fighter pilot in the air force would clearly love to fly it."
He then sets out a series of magnificent new features incorporated in the F/A-22 and details how the aircraft is being developed to extend its ability.
But in the end Houston and the other defence chiefs still favour the JSF over the F/A-22 and Houston points out that the JSF will have advantages in many areas, including versatility and the ability to carry larger weapons.
Nevertheless, the JSF is the biggest single purchase Australia has ever undertaken and to be buying an untested aircraft over one that is "the most outstanding aircraft ever built" is taking an incredible risk.
The defence chiefs also use cost/benefit to justify the JSF and say that the JSF's cost forecasts are about $US45 million ($63 million) compared with $US153 million for an F/A-22.
The clear implication is that you can get three JSFs for every one F/A-22, so it makes more sense to take the JSF.
But Britain estimates that the cost of the JSF is about $US100 million – more than twice the Australian estimate.
It seems that we may have used a figure that would only apply if we bought the aircraft much later in its production run and we do not count the necessary investment in backup and installation systems.
If John Howard wins the next election, he should seriously consider appointing a different defence minister because these are vital issues that need a second look.
If Mark Latham wins, you can be sure that Kim Beazley will carry out the instructions of the joint standing committee.
[email protected]
==========================================
Defence up in the air over F-111 policy
Robert Gottliebsen
September 07, 2004
WHILE the ALP is vulnerable in the election campaign because of the link between its industrial relations policies and interest rates, the Government's policy weakness is in air defence.
Unfortunately, air defence struggles to hit the headlines when compared to the popular issues but longer term it is more important because it goes to the heart of our security.
The risks we are taking in air defence were underlined by last month's amazing pre-election decision of the all-party Joint Standing Committee on Defence.
It recommended that the defence minister in the next parliament conduct an inquiry into the ability of the Australian Defence Force to maintain air superiority in our region to 2020 – the linchpin of our defence strategy .
It then went further and recommended that in 2006 the government should make a statement focusing on the delivery date for the replacement combat aircraft and the decision to retire the F-111 and, in the meantime, instruct the defence chiefs not to run down the F-111.
Clearly the defence chiefs have not convinced either the Government or the Labour members of the committee that they have the right answers.
The defence chiefs believe we should phase out the F-111 and concentrate on making the F/A-18A far more powerful with better equipment and backup network technology.
The danger in this strategy is that the F/A-18A struggles against the Russian-built Sukhoi, which is being bought by Indonesia, China and India and will have similar network equipment.
The alternative strategy is to improve the equipment inside and around the F-111.
The defence chiefs claimed that the F-111 was unreliable but they were aggressively challenged on this assumption.
In particular, shadow defence minister Kim Beazley believes they are likely to be wrong.
After reviewing the evidence and the experts' conflicting opinions, the all-party committee clearly believes there is at least a good case for extending the F111's life.
When it comes to replacing current aircraft the defence chiefs favour (but have not committed themselves to) the Joint Strike Fighter, which is in the early stage of development. The JSF has all the hazards of a new plane, including ballooning costs and possible long delays, which underlines the importance of making the right decision on the F-111. And many believe Australia should choose the F/A-22, another US plane which is already developed.
Writing in the ASPI Journal, RAAF chief Air Marshal Angus Houston concedes the popularity of the F/A-22 and says: "The F/A-22 will be the most outstanding fighter aircraft ever built. It may even represent the end of the line in manned fighters. Every fighter pilot in the air force would clearly love to fly it."
He then sets out a series of magnificent new features incorporated in the F/A-22 and details how the aircraft is being developed to extend its ability.
But in the end Houston and the other defence chiefs still favour the JSF over the F/A-22 and Houston points out that the JSF will have advantages in many areas, including versatility and the ability to carry larger weapons.
Nevertheless, the JSF is the biggest single purchase Australia has ever undertaken and to be buying an untested aircraft over one that is "the most outstanding aircraft ever built" is taking an incredible risk.
The defence chiefs also use cost/benefit to justify the JSF and say that the JSF's cost forecasts are about $US45 million ($63 million) compared with $US153 million for an F/A-22.
The clear implication is that you can get three JSFs for every one F/A-22, so it makes more sense to take the JSF.
But Britain estimates that the cost of the JSF is about $US100 million – more than twice the Australian estimate.
It seems that we may have used a figure that would only apply if we bought the aircraft much later in its production run and we do not count the necessary investment in backup and installation systems.
If John Howard wins the next election, he should seriously consider appointing a different defence minister because these are vital issues that need a second look.
If Mark Latham wins, you can be sure that Kim Beazley will carry out the instructions of the joint standing committee.
[email protected]
==========================================