Time to end the defence game of ‘pass the parcel’

Spooner’s view. Cartoon: John Spooner

The 15-year game of “pass the parcel” played by Australian defence ministers has ended.

The music has finally stopped and current Defence Minister Linda Reynolds is holding the Joint Strike Fighter and fantasy land defence assumptions parcel.

Finally the top brass in the Royal Australian Air Force have confessed that Australia must urgently review its air strike capability and we will need a major increase in air and sea power.

For at least 15 years Australian politicians were told the JSF would deliver air superiority in the region --- like the F-111--- and that we could assume a strong US role in the region.

The sad thing is that it has been widely known for most of the last 15 years that the JSF would not meet Australian needs.

READ MORE: Give RAAF more strike force | US open to deal on new jets | Call halt to loss of life and treasure

The game of “pass the parcel” started in 2006 when the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade had a submission from independent defence strategist Air Power Australia warning the nation that the rise of China would transform the Australian defence outlook and create new risks. This added great hazard to the JSF purchase which had been arranged some four years earlier.

Then deputy secretary of strategy in the Department of Defence Michael Pezzullo, with the top brass behind him, declared that the Air Power scenario was “predicated upon a massive erosion of US military and strategic capability”.

“It is predicated on Australia having to operate independently beyond our immediate regions. It is predicated upon a radically different set of circumstances, which, I must say, I do not necessarily see even in the most speculative parts of my crystal ball.”

The Pezzullo declaration, backed by Australian defence chiefs, has been the strategic theme that has dominated Australian Defence decisions in last 15 plus years.

Air Power was correct and the defence chiefs were simply wrong. Our air force top brass is now calling for more outlays to cover the gaps that have been created by incorrect strategic thinking.

I came into contact with Air Power and its people, led by Peter Goon and Carlo Kopp, and I soon found that their scary analysis of the shortcomings of the Joint Strike Fighter was confirmed by the material coming out of America.

Our defence ministers either did not do their homework or hoped they could pass the JSF parcel along to the next minister while the music was still playing.

One of the nine defence ministers after March 2016 actually did discover the JSF horror and resigned because he didn’t feel up to the challenge of implementing the solution.

The trouble is that Australia has committed around $20 billion dollars to buy the JSF (now called F-35) aircraft and with that comes an open-ended liability to constantly “upgrade” the aircraft. But many of the “upgrades” are actually remedial actions, given its many defects.

The aircraft costs around $US40,000 per hour to operate so with the “upgrades” we are looking at countless tens of billions in extra outlays just to keep this aircraft going.

The JSF has a series of technical problems which over time will be solved via the “upgrades”, but inherently it takes too long to prepare for a flight and it does not have the height or manoeuvrability to match the modern Chinese and Russian aircraft.

It is “a flying computer” with incredible software that can certainly help other planes, but it is very vulnerable. It is the sort of aircraft you have when you either don’t expect a war or can rely completely on the Americans. The JSF and the Middle Eastern wars has sapped the strength of the US and China has emerged as a major regional force.

Any country with a JSF fleet needs an aircraft like America’s F22. But the US F22 manufacturing plant is in mothballs.

The French-made submarine to be supplied to Australia. Picture: AFP

The theme of “she’ll be right mate” which has been behind many of our defence strategies was also taken into the disastrous submarine decision, where we rejected tenders of around $20 billion for first class submarines that would benefit from modern technology for a $50 billion purchase from the French, which was basically a nuclear submarine shape which would be propelled by speculative new technology that is now under a cloud.

Soon after the purchase was announced the price went up to $90 billion and we are probably looking at over $200 billion in total outlays. Worse still we will be lucky to get a submarine by 2030 – by which time the world has moved on.

The defence chiefs now understand that the Air Power danger alerts that they rejected in 2006 are now real threats to Australia. But we are saddled with a JSF bill that will exceed $100 billion and a submarine outlay of $200 billion - neither which will help us much.

It is no wonder past defence ministers have been so happy to pass the parcel. Somewhere along the line Australia is going to have to find vast sums to cover these terrible mistakes to give ourselves proper defence capability. These bills must be paid by taxpayers and those who depend on the public purse.

I started writing about the JSF prior to 2006 in The Australian and then I continued the theme via Business Spectator only to resume it when I rejoined The Australian. My readers have therefore been through the whole sickening journey. I always hoped I was wrong.

READ MORE: Defence deals leave Australia exposed | Joint Strike Fighter a dangerous and costly mistake

Australia desperately needed the US to merge the F22 with the JSF development but we didn’t even try to convince them. The alternative was to follow Canada and ditch the JSF--- and again we didn’t seem to understand the new reality.

Defence Minister Linda Reynolds. Picture: AFP

Meanwhile over a long period of time a series of half-truths, quarter-truths and fibs have been told to the Australian parliament.

So, Linda Reynolds, you have the horrible task of facing the reality of the past mistakes.

You must put the past behind you and accept that this has been a total disaster and start making decisions in the national interest.

I don’t envy you but the first step is to admit those past errors and accept that the music no longer plays.

You will certainly need a totally new set of advisers at the top and you might need a royal commission.