No aircraft design in history is going to have such a negative effect on western politics and security as the Lockheed Martin lead JSF or Joint Strike Fighter F-35 project.
This is the only conclusion that can be taken from the US Air Force Association presentation (below) by the recently retired commander of the USAF Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance agency, LtGen David Deptula that is still being discussed on the Crikey website following a report in the Crikey subscriber bulletin yesterday.
Deptula argues that from 2015 the JSF is a core element in the denial of air superiority to the western allies. Another critical element is US neglect of surface-to-air defences.
The enormity of this situation needs to be contemplated from an Australian perspective.
As a foundation sucker for this disgracefully mismanaged project, Australia has carried out the wishes of its US protector only to find that America will be without air superiority too.
In a country that cannot even crew a single submarine effectively, and has a defence establishment that always acts like the seller of the failed product rather than the critical customer there is reason to begin a truly urgent defence review of the world realities that are coming into frame.
These are economic as well as political realities.
One focus of Plane Talking is ‘plain talking’. The failings of the JSF, like the failings of banking systems and corporate governance, have been facilitated by the collapse of critical and impartial analysis and the rise of spin and deception as a means of managing or ‘owning’ reality by powerful interests.
A society glued together by bullsh*t is not a durable society. Nor does a defence project held together by impenetrable lays of deception and double talk make for air superiority and a secure nation.
Within a decade we could lose our resources and our territorial integrity. All because of a lack of plain talking.
17 Comments
The JSF is a massive corporatist failure. But for as long as the US has enough nuclear weapons to obliterate everyone in the world 5x over, and is publicly committed to defending Australia, the last two paragraphs don’t hold. Lack of air superiority merely means that we won’t be able to have operations like Iraq and Afghanistan – which some might argue is no bad thing…
The consequence of resorting to nuclear threats as an instrument of policy upon the loss of air superiority has been mentioned in a number of quarters in recent years.
The credibility of such threats is negated by the resurgence of Russia, which even in a 9:1 exchange scenario either way with the US is a result that destroys both powers completely within a few hours and may severely compromise the human condition globally for an exceptionally long interval.
For a nuclear threat to command respect it has to be unopposed by the party threatened as in not being protected by another nuclear power, or being one in its own right. I find it hard to imagine a US that will put its cities on the line because a land force has taken the Pilbara, or a naval expedition has seized several off-shore oil fields. Nor an Australia that would tolerate any risk that within 40 minutes every capital city is cinders.
The battles of the near future may therefore continue to be fought with non-nuclear weaponry, but as Deptula, for the very conservative body that is the Air Force Association, has pointed out, the west will find very large areas of the globe have become impenetrable to its war planes.
This is a situation that could cost Australia its territorial integrity and control of key resources.
johnb78:
Your thinking mirrors that of a number of senior officials in Defence.
The real issues is not how you win a war but how you prevent a situation that leads to war arising.
Dumbing down your countries defence capabilities and preparedness has never been known or recognised as a way for achieving this aim.
More accuracy and less hyperbole please.
We currently have three Collins class submarines at sea.
So here’s my dumb question. The problem seems to be that the american planes are not as good as the new russian/chinese planes and/or very expensive.
So, why don’t we just buy the new russian/chinese planes? I’m not an expert but i’d bet they are much cheaper.
ben
The answer to my similarly dumb question has variously been that despite the Russian jets being for sale they would not really be for sale to a western ally, and that it was irrelevant because Australia would never think about breaking the grip of the past so dramatically. Despite this, I have seen a document arguing that Japan would radically reconsider its defence procurement policies if it judged the situation in relation to China was unacceptable, and thus choose Russian equipment and perhaps an Israeli systems combination. All hypothetical, and some said forcefully, too far fetched, but Russia and China are rivals in these matters.
There is an additional reason for thinking the ‘unthinkable’, and that is the rapid sophistication of the aerospace sector in China, both at the ‘aero’ and ‘space’ end of that term. In the space launch, systems, and commercial jet airliner levels, China is out pacing every estimate I have seen from western experts as to what it will achieve, aided of course by outright purchases of western equipment for its COMAC 919 200 seat jet, due in production before 2020.
EADS and Boeing are working very hard at ‘working with’ China. And Russia. And India. I don’t think the resistance to even contemplating buying Russian or Chinese equipment is durable in the short to medium term.
There are a couple of things that need to be remembered when considering the defence of Australia. Firstly, it is a bloody long way to invade, even if you are thinking only of the northern bits. Think how much it took for the allies to cross about 120 miles of water to invade Normandy and then have a look at how far it is from say East Timor to Darwin.
Secondly, it is cheaper to trade than invade. Certainly Australia has plenty of natural resources, which we sell comparatively cheaply so countries such as China can make a fortune out of selling it to the US or us. We are a good reliable supplier so why upset the apple cart, more so when most of our exports go overseas in ships run by the countries we are selling to.
Finally, if you want to dominate Australia you need to dominate its trade routes. That primarily means South East Asia. Whoever controls that region controls the trade routes Australia needs. Why bother invading the country when it is not necessary?
Thanks for the clarification Ben.
I think we should pursue the russian/chinese/israeli option, even if it is just to generate some price competition.
However, I can see how easy it would be for such a thought to be derailed. It would be the work of a moment for any hack/politician/boeing salesman to conflate the source of the physical hardware, which doesn’t matter at all, with changing sides against the US alliance.
A lot of the defence stuff only seems to make sense as
- backdoor industry policy/job creation through complicated new submarines,
- gestures that illustrate the government’s point of view (iraq/afghanistan etc). Unfortunately with real people.
- actual $$$s in support of the US defence industries.
If I had a choice and was convinced that we do need to pay a US alliance insurance policy, I would prefer that we did it with cash and not people. How about the next time (Iran?) we offer two sorts of support:
- rhetorical – senior ministers could be sent into the media front lines to inveigh against the enemy and heap praise on the deeply sensible US approach without, you know, sending our people to get shot at.
- $$$s, say guys, you know those old helicopters/planes/tanks that you can’t shift, we’ll buy ‘em, no need to send them over, just tip them in the sea quietly and we’ll wire the money.
Ben: How is this for “a total indifference to what is real”.
The JSF Helmet reportedly costs around one million dollars per.
The JSF pilot will not be able to fully operate the weapon system without the helmet.
Dropping the helmet on the tarmac is likely a Class A mishap.
Also, the helmet is so heavy and bulky that the emergency egress system (Ejection Seat) requires an active helmet/head restraint system in order to minimise damage to the pilot’s neck and upper spine during the ejection.
How smart is all of this?
You have to wonder about that whole video presentation. How reliable is it? For example it keeps making comparisons to the American F15 – as I understand it, the last F15 was retired only a couple of weeks ago. There are pictures of the F14 in that movie too. They have all been retired. How hard is it to make the US look old fashioned and old, when you’re showing images of obsolete aircraft?
What else in this movie is distorted?? If one aspect is distorted, you have to wonder about the rest of it.
Had similar thoughts about aspects of the presentation. Then asked myself, what drove this person and this association to produce something that is aimed at lay Americans and non-technical politicians and distributed through social media, three targets that have until now seldom occupied the attentions of the AFA? My view is that this radical course of action, given the person and the organisation, is a very deliberate attempt to jolt public and political opinion into action over the impending loss of US air superiority.
The more I think about it the more ‘unusual’ and desperate this action is.
The F-15 is rather a long way from retirement. The F-15 (C and E strike eagle versions) is expected to be in service with the U.S. Air Force until 2025 with 178 (of the C versions) of them recently receiving AESA radar and plans to upgrade with the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System.
Brand new f-15Ks are in fact still being built, for South Korea.
There is a serious issue buried in this debate: the comment, “…as long as the US has enough nuclear weapons to obliterate everyone in the world 5x over, and is publicly committed to defending Australia….” Do we have to list the countries and people to which the US has been “publicly committed to defending” but has sold down the river or totally blown off, from Vietnam to Congo?
Australia had better have a Plan B for US “commitment” to “defending” Australia which, under some circumstances may be deemed to be not in the best interests of the US or simply not plausible, as in the current moment when US is overstretched in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere – what could it do right now other than send a symbolic naval task force to the area?
Do you really think that the US is going to nuke China or Russia in defense of Australia? I don’t think so.
MikeKear, the Koreans are still building F-15s (or maybe have just concluded the program, it must be close). Had Robert Hill not unilaterally abandoned the AIR 6000 selection process and pumped for the F-35, it would have been a strong candidate to replace the F-111 in the absence of F-22s.