Defence left behind by lack of armed drones

A Boeing MQ-28A Ghost Bat Drone.

Australia’s lack of killer drones and counter-drone capability has become the most serious and embarrassing hole in our national defence and one that needs ­urgent government attention.

The deadly drone strike against US troops by Iran-backed terrorists in Jordan has further unlined the fact that the world of warfare has changed fundamentally while Australia has stood still.

The drone strike, which killed three American troops, was the deadliest of more than 160 attacks on US personnel in Iraq, Syria and the region since October, most of which have been carried out by one-way drones or rockets. That single act of drone-delivered terror in Jordan will trigger US ­retaliation and could even see the unleashing of a region-wide war.

Armed drones are now at the forefront of the world’s conflicts, from the Red Sea, Gaza and the Middle East to the frontlines of Ukraine’s war with Russia.

These drones come in all shapes and sizes and are worth anything from millions to several thousand dollars and can inflict enormous and disproportionate damage, just like the deadly strike against US troops in Jordan.

But for reasons that amount to culpable oversight, Australia has missed the drone revolution ­because it is too busy planning for tomorrow’s war rather than being equipped for the war of today.

Incredibly, the Australian ­Defence Force has no armed drones and no specific anti-drone capability.

The planned Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat armed drone is still in development, but this is an un-crewed aircraft – a far cry from the disposable “kamikaze” drones used in Ukraine and the Middle East.

The absence of counter-drone capabilities was almost certainly a factor in the government’s recent decision not to agree to a US Navy request to send a warship to the Red Sea where Houthi rebels are using kamikaze drones to ­attack commercial shipping.

Yet disposable cheap drones – as well as counter-drone technology – are readily available and could be acquired in large numbers without the long-lead times associated with other defence equipment purchases.

The failure of successive Australian governments to authorise the cheap and rapid acquisition of armed drones is an indictment on an inflexible defence procurement process that plans decades ahead. It is also a failure of political leadership.

Last year’s Defence Strategic Review said the ADF was “not fit for purpose” and that defence needed to “lift our capability to rapidly translate destructive new technologies into ADF capabilities”.

But, just like the rest of the review, these fine words have not been followed up by any action or even a sense of urgency on a critical capability, even though that capability could be acquired at relatively short notice.

Defence is stuck in a bureaucratic torpor, unable or unwilling to break years of habit to respond quickly and meaningfully to these technological developments that are changing the face of war.

This is where political leadership must kick in. Defence Minister Richard Marles needs to show greater political courage in his portfolio. He needs to shake up a fusty, inflexible department and take on the anti-drone traditionalists, especially those in the air force who can’t see beyond piloted planes. He must urgently ­demand the purchase of cheap armed drones and counter-drone technology.

To do this Marles will either need to re-prioritise defence spending or – better still – to throw his weight around in cabinet to secure a funding increase for defence.

Anthony Albanese this month promised to take an active role in fast-tracking critically needed ­defence technology.

“You can’t defend Australia with a press release, you need ­assets,” he said.

Well Prime Minister, the ­assets that Australia needs the most right now are armed drones and counter-drone capability. The government needs to act now if it wants to catch up to this changing face of modern warfare.