Promises on paper are no defence on the battlefield

The news that the army’s new $13bn armoured vehicle fleets will be vulnerable to killer drones, requiring major upgrades to protect Australian personnel, is the latest disturbing revelation about Australia’s inability to defend itself in challenging strategic times. Defence has not specified purpose-designed counter-drone systems for the army’s $3bn Abrams tanks, $5bn Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicles or recently ordered $4.5bn infantry fighting vehicles. Just as dangerous is the ADF’s own lack of killer drones, as Ben Packham wrote on Tuesday. There is “clearly a choke point in Defence as to why we haven’t got armed drones and drone protection”, retired armoured regiment commander Major General Gus McLachlan says. Plugging those gaping holes must be a priority.

Sunday’s drone strike against US troops in Jordan by Iran-backed terrorists shows warfare has changed fundamentally, while Australia has stood still. Lack of protection against enemy drones leaves defence personnel and valuable equipment, from F35 fighter jets on the ground to navy ships, vulnerable. Such shortcomings surely explain, in part, why Australia declined to send a ship to the Red Sea to help defend commercial shipping against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. Crippling crew shortages that have caused the navy to look at mothballing two more of its Anzac-class frigates are adding to the ADF’s woes.

Last year’s Defence Strategic Review by former defence force chief Angus Houston and former minister Stephen Smith said the ADF’s operational success would depend on its ability to field uncrewed aircraft and submarines for surveillance and strike missions. The government is rebuilding defence investment in line with those priorities, a Defence spokeswoman said. The Boeing MQ-28A Ghost Bat program, which had received $600m in taxpayers funds, was “entirely new technology”, still undergoing testing, and scheduled for a “capability demonstration” in late 2025. The Ghost Bat is the Rolls-Royce of drones, an uncrewed aircraft and, as Cameron Stewart wrote, a “far cry from the disposable ‘kamikaze’ drones used in Ukraine and the Middle East”. It is designed to work as a “loyal wingman” with manned combat jets. The government is also proceeding with the Triton unarmed reconnaissance drone program, despite a $2.5bn cost for just four aircraft. But in addition to top-drawer systems, there is also an argument for investing in the kind of low-cost drones that can be deployed in large numbers. Strategic Analysis Australia research director Marcus Hellyer told The Australian that rather than focusing on expensive systems, the ADF needed “the small, the smart and the many”. Instead of using one $5m missile, 100 $10,000 systems could achieve the same or better effect. Without getting combat drones into service, former chief of army Peter Leahy, a University of Canberra professor, warned, the ADF would face heavy casualties against better-equipped forces.

In the interests of national security, the government must hold the decision-makers at the top of the ADF to account. In a recent column questioning the decision to bury $1bn worth of Taipan helicopters instead of giving them to Ukraine, Peter Jennings argued that governments were not elected “for ministers to passively accept poor-quality advice. Accountability needs to be exercised”. On the issue of accountability, Defence Minister Richard Marles and ADF top brass should also provide a clear explanation for the bewildering appointment of Colonel Penioni Naliva, a Fijian military officer allegedly responsible for human rights abuses and torture, as commander of the Australian Army’s 7th Brigade.