Survival demands urgent action to bolster our defence

The Joint Strike Fighter ‘would defeat any Chinese or Russian plane sent against them’ but range is a disadvantage for Australia.

Scott Morrison has compared our time with the 1930s. The admiral in command of US forces in Asia says there is a strong chance China will invade Taiwan in the next six years. The US is committed to Taiwan’s security and would respond militarily. Politically, strategically and technically, it’s inconceivable Australia would not be involved.

Our communications facilities are critical to US submarine, missile detection and missile launch capabilities. They would be a prime target in serious military conflict. Every civilised leader is trying to prevent such conflict. The way to do this is soberly to make it clear to Beijing that invading Taiwan would come at enormous cost.

However, Australia should also pay attention to what the region might look like for us if the US lost such a conflict. This almost certainly would mean our dealing with a much diminished US military presence in our region.

Therefore, as a matter of the greatest urgency, Australia must beef up its independent military capabilities, both to support the US and prevent conflict, and to be able to look after ourselves whatever happens.

We have what will be the world’s 12 most powerful conventional submarines on order. They are a good investment. But they don’t start arriving until 2034. Our new frigates are also delayed.

So here’s the rub: how can we acquire much greater strategic weight over the next 10 to 15 years? We need much greater strike capability; to hold enemies, and if necessary hit them, much farther from our shores.

One key problem is the very small size of our defence force. We have a tiny military of state-of-the-art stuff, metaphorical Lamborghinis. In effect, we have three Lamborghinis when what we need are 200 utes. Our lack of size and lack of stockpile mean we have no war-fighting ability. For example, last year the government announced we were going to buy from the US 200 long-range anti-ship missiles. That’s a good purchase. But it’s a tiny number. If a conflict starts at 9am on a Monday, 200 missiles should get us through to morning tea on Thursday. After that we’re stuffed.

The purchase of 200 long-range anti-ship missiles from the US is a good one but it’s not enough.

We have about 100 fast jets. That’s a boutique force, not a war-fighting force. We have 12, rising to 14, P-8 Poseidon aircraft which have a big reconnaissance, anti-ship and anti-submarine role. But 14? We should move very fast in the next few years on fast jets, missiles and unmanned submarines.

We have the best fast jets in the world in the Joint Strike Fighter F35s. A nonsensical campaign is being waged against them similar to that waged against the French subs, and similarly by people who have no idea at all of the F-35’s classified capabilities. They are the best plane we could have and would defeat any Chinese or Russian plane sent against them. Their world’s-best stealth, vast array of sophisticated sensors and networking capabilities make them, as the Americans say, the key part of sensor/shooter systems that would destroy any planes sent against them.

The nonsense campaign denigrating them is informed by the normal bellyaching over cost that the US Air Force, and all big defence customers, get involved in when acquiring a new generation of capability.

The US is changing the composition of its fleet for two reasons. It has got to unmanned aircraft more quickly than it anticipated and it has realised that for a lot of straightforward missions you don’t need the world’s most advanced, stealth aircraft. The JSF is nonetheless the core of US and Israeli military aircraft. These nations don’t entrust their security to duds.

For Australia, the only disadvantage of the JSF is range. We can address that two ways. The Super Hornets have a longer range. We have only 24 of them. Another squadron or two, with our longest range missiles integrated into them — these are currently integrated only into our ageing classic Hornets — would give us much more punch at greater distance. We would proceed with the JSF purchase at the same time. Even more important, the Australian-produced unmanned Loyal Wingman jet offers great potential. It could be evolved as an unmanned bomber. Because it doesn’t need a pilot, it can carry more munitions than a manned aircraft and it can achieve a greater range. It’s cheaper than a manned aircraft and it’s made in Australia. But if we go down that road we need to move fast and build large numbers.

We need many, many, many more missiles. The government has foreshadowed an effort for Australia to become, in partnership with the Americans, a missile manufacturer. That would be a magnificent development. Meantime, we need to buy lots more missiles while we develop a production capability more quickly than we have ever done anything like that before. We must move fast. We won’t have the luxury of asking a potential aggressor to wait while we get ready.

On submarines, only a fool would ditch the French subs, but in the meantime there are two big things we can do. First, as we extend the life of the Collins subs, in their major refits we should make them much more lethal. An obvious way to do this would be to fit them with Tomahawk cruise missiles. We could also, incidentally, fit our air warfare destroyers with Tomahawks.

Then we can also acquire, as they come into service, Orcas, the long-range unmanned underwater vehicles. Like almost all unmanned vehicles, they work best in tandem with, or under the direction of, a manned system. They cannot do everything a submarine can do but they can do quite a lot. They certainly complicate the situation of any potential adversary.

Soon enough there will be hypersonic weapons that can operate at great speed over very long distances. We are deeply involved in hypersonic research with the Americans. But when these weapons come along it’s not good enough for us to be in on the research and to acquire one or two like prize stamps in a private collection. We will need them in sufficient numbers to make a strategic difference.

In budget terms, we have spent a lot on COVID-related issues, but much less than we expected to 12 months ago. Another $20bn, or even $40bn, on these defence capabilities over the next few years would make no real difference to our budget but might make a serious difference to our chances of national survival.

That’s what the government should concentrate on.