Almost no-one but the ABC fell for the Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, folding the latest grim news about the Joint Strike Fighter into the release of the latest unfortunately named Defence Force Posture Review progress report for public review today.
Our defence posture is one of being obscenely violated by years of ascendancy by a lying PR campaign about the Joint Strike Fighter which has exposed Australia to extreme risk of loss of air superiority before this decade is over.
As Minister Smith made plain today, we might have wanted 100 of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters, but we are only contracted to buy two of the 14 Australia was supposed to acquire from next year for training and evaluation.
His oblique reference to the option of buying more Super Hornets instead is insulting. That is about as useful as ordering more horses for the Polish Cavalry in advance of World War II given the ominous developments of military air power capabilities in China and Russia.
The technical and strategic consequences of the JSF program failing in its competency, capabilities and costs have largely been ignored by the obsequious adulation of the program in Australia, in the face of robust evidence of failure under each of those headings disclosed by Congressional oversight in recent years.
Australia has been very poorly served by Ministerial and ADF and Defence Materiel oversight of the JSF, in that we seemed more concerned with posturing in support of the program, contrary to the unfolding realities, than behaving like the customer from hell, which is what billion dollar commitments require.
But the hard facts can’t be avoided anymore. Not only doesn’t the JSF work, but America can’t afford it.
However the unique vulnerability of Australia to this program is that is has been promoted within our defence establishment as the comprehensive answer to our future air capability. It has been elevated to a central role that it cannot fulfill, just as we promoted a submarine that can’t work to a role of immense importance in our naval planning.
Now we have to think very hard about having to replace the JSF in the defence future of Australia. This is disproportionately challenging compared the breadth and depth of military technology options available in the US, where it will hurt, but not nearly as badly.
And let’s not make any more excuses about how the program can be brought back to functionality. It isn’t working and its unaffordable.
This is what now retired defence chief Angus Houston said of the JSF project in The Age on 21 November 2008.
The new Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is exactly what Australia needs and there are no concerns at all that it won’t perform properly, the Defence Force chief says.
Defence head Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston said on Friday that the JSF would dominate the skies, perform close air support for troops on the ground, as well as strike maritime targets.
“Performance is fabulous. It is exactly what we need. There are no performance concerns about the JSF in the Australian Defence Force, in the air force, indeed anywhere,” he told reporters.
“It will be a very capable aircraft which will give us exactly what we need.”
Air Chief Marshal Houston said Lockheed had learned much from its development of the F-22 Raptor fighter.
He said the company had also gone to considerable effort to reduce the risks associated with developing aircraft electronic systems.
“The whole approach in the JSF is very innovative and takes full account of the lessons learned from the F-22 program,” he said.
Read the above and weep. The criticism of Houston and the defence establishment that has been made here on many occasions is that he behaved more like part of the promotional arm of lead contractor Lockheed Martin than a customer for an immensely costly and complex project in which Australia should have been exercising intense oversight and auditing its progress at every step of the way.
But Australia did none of those things. It was taken for a sucker by a project in which the only thing that ever worked was a campaign of misinformation, supported by a defence establishment that behaved like a cheer squad.
We need to urgently reconsider the quality of public administration in Canberra in so many places. Separating the public service from PR driven message management techniques would be a very, very good start.
7 Comments
re: “Our defence posture is one of being obscenely violated by years of ascendancy by a lying PR campaign about the Joint Strike Fighter”, perhaps you should update our defence posture to “bend over”.
The JSF is clearly a replacement for the F16/Harrier class of single engined fighter; it was never an F111 replacement but then neither is the F18 Super Hornet. We have been led merrily up the garden path by various Canberra Governments keen to be seen posturing in Washington for the domestic newsreels. It is regrettable that defence chiefs are just another class of public servant, who when they reach flag rank are just as expendable as any other department head who does not toe the Government line. How long do you think ACM Houston would have lasted if he had opposed the politicians desires? As it is he has retired with rank and ceremony and obligatory board positions.
The issue here is the defence of Australia and as you have highlighted we are being poorly served.
And what of the parallels to the recent C-27 Spartan debacle? Clearly our defence decisions are based not on capability, or suitability for the mission, or bang for the buck, but on our subservience to our American masters, ah, I mean “maintaining our special relationship with the United States”.
It seems to be hard to maintain that relationship so far as Spartans are concerned now that the US has decided not to buy any more. I read Smith’s comments on that as meaning that while it was the preferred aircraft, the change in USG policy means it is no longer a certain choice.
“That is about as useful as ordering more horses for the Polish Cavalry in advance of World War II” Actually wasn’t the RAAF equipped with Brewster Buffalos at the outbreak of war in the Pacific? I seem to remember from my aircraft besotted youth that this was another example of a US Aircraft that couldn’t deliver the performance it was touted to have.
Because this debacle has been going on for so long, many have forgotten the original design concept of the JSF. From the outset the F35 was to be the Lo in a Hi-Lo mix, designed to operate in tandem with the F22, similar to how the F16 & A10 currently operate with the F15.
If you look back at the timelines of when the F35 started being pushed as a air superiority fighter, it coincides with the beginning of the demise of the F22.
The F35 has “evolved” from a CAS platform to a air dominance fighter without any change to its basic design. From my perspective that says that LM designers failed to recognise just how good their design was or, LM are lying to sell their product, given the problems we are seeing within the programe, I doubt its the former.
How does an aircraft, designed & optimised for transonic manouver at low to mid altitudes morph into an air dominance fighter without altering basic wing design/ loading, air mass flow of the intakes, engine specific power etc? The reality is that it cant, & even if it the F35 worked, it would still be outclassed against anticipated future threats.
The problem that Aust now faces is, what is the alternative given the aircraft currently available, more Supers, F15SE, Typhoon, Rafale or Grippen?
Another article on this subject – from an American point of view:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_jet_that_ate_the_pentagon
“If the F-35′s performance were spectacular, it might be worth the cost and wait. But it is not. Even if the aircraft lived up to its original specifications — and it will not — it would be a huge disappointment. The reason it is such a mediocrity also explains why it is unaffordable and, for years to come, unobtainable.
“The bottom line: The F-35 is not the wonder its advocates claim. It is a gigantic performance disappointment, and in some respects a step backward. The problems, integral to the design, cannot be fixed without starting from a clean sheet of paper.”