Worries over AUS Air Cover

[2RHPZ]

Worries over AUS air cover

July 05, 2004
IF John Howard delays the election until October or November, he may be forced to make another apology to Parliament that he has been misled by Defence.

This will depend on the performance of the Defence Department heads before the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade at a specially convened meeting on August 2.

The Department of Defence has been recalled due to gaps in previous submissions and its revelation last month that Australia plans to cut air cover capacity from the levels set out in the 2000 Defence white paper. Partly as a result of the defence submissions to the committee, the ALP has declared that if elected, it will restore the 2000 level.

Unless the department reveals a lot more information to the next standing committee, the Government will be under pressure to follow. The 2000 white paper said that for the past 30 years Australia had had air superiority in the region but the countries to our north were likely to rapidly escalate their air strike capability in the next decade.

The authors of the white paper were chillingly correct. At the last joint standing committee meeting former defence minister Kim Beazley said that Australia was in "the only region in the world in which there is an arms race, in which people are acquiring new capabilities at a rapid rate of knots and learning how to use them".

The Defence chiefs announced to the joint committee that they would increase Australia's strike capability by 14 per cent from its current level.

But the white paper had planned on a 43 per cent increase, so in effect Defence is substantially reducing Australia's strike capability from 2010 onwards and it is doing this by retiring the F-111.

It plans to order (but has not done so) the US joint strike fighter (JSF) and it was assumed that it would arrive in 2012. But the fighter has not yet been designed and already has been put back to 2014 and is likely to be much later. The gap will be filled by a series of measures that support the F/A-18A.

The Defence chiefs said that the F-111 had encountered surprise problems and this meant that it would be very costly to maintain until the JSF arrived.

But in a submission in response to the Defence chiefs' claims, defence supplier Peter Goon and defence strategist Carlo Kopp say that the problems with the F-111 were known for many years previously and were not a surprise. They were easily managed and/or prevented by normal long-term planned maintenance. But Defence had not done this. Goon and Kopp also claim that the 14 per cent increase in air strike capability promised by the Defence chiefs is simply wrong and they had underestimated what was required to support the F/A-18A aircraft.

The Defence chiefs claimed they had technology to network the F/A-18A and that technology was not available for the F-111.

Goon and Kopp explain where F-111 networking equipment can be obtained. In all, they isolate 49 mistakes that they claim the Defence chiefs made in their submission to the joint committee.

If it does its job, the committee will make the Defence chiefs address each of the allegations.

It is obviously possible that the Defence department has the answers.

There will be enormous pressure on the committee to vote on party lines. But Australian defence should be worth more than that.

[Flagg]

Kill the unneccessary M1 Abrams purchase....divert funds to maintaining a useful and needed capability, the F111 deep strike mission

[Kilgor]

people dont tend to care about defense, the colins class submarine issue is a good example.

[Hellman109]

Nor do they understand it....

If you look at a map of Australia, what is inbetween us and every potential enemy (that is, apart from the politicians.......).... water... pretty damn obvious there.

Also, what is boardering every potential enemies military facility? water too. To be able to strike these places is essential in retaliating for any attack on Australian soil, you need to slow or stop there movement of troops to Australia, and to do that you need a nazy and an airforce capable of stopping your potential enemies.

We need an upgraded navy and airforce above army, as they will be what stops the first attack from anywhere. An aircraft carrier with a high quality fighter/bomber wing based out of Darwin would basically put a huge wall upto anyone attempting to attack Australia, as it could defend against the attack, and also retalliate.

If the carrier could ensure air superiority over our northern boarders, you can basically repell any attack, as they will have to come over water, and they will either have to come from the north in a quick attack, fly around to the east, where they could be easily intercepted by said carrier, or use ships to take them east or west, both of which can be easily noticed and responded to quickly.

Add to this a platform to launch amphibious attacks (I have seen that we are looking at purchasing 2-3 ships capable of this) and you have a defence capable of stopping any major attack and retalliating enforce.


I dont see why we need to purchase M1A2's, stop there armour landing by destroying there transports and the tanks need never fire a shot.

[fantassin]

Just buy a couple of squadrons of Rafale...the aussie pilot were used to the Mirage III and they'll get along fine with the 5 Airbus tankers just bought by Oz as well as with the Tiger helicopters...go Europe, go !

As far as the amphibious ships are concerned, France and Spain are both offereing tenders; Spain seems tp be the favourite because it also offers frigates at a low cost (cheaper than the former US frigates anyway...)

[Kilgor]

ive wondered why the abrams tanks too.

Surely better spent on subs/boats to sink the transports before they get ashore. And for the few that do, upgraded air/helicopter attack ability.

They money probably is better spent on more tigers..

[Obergefreiter]

I do not see why they would spend money on new tanks ween the defence plan would obviously be to keep an invader from reaching the shore.

Navy and Air Force would be primary. The New Zealand navy will not continue to cover for the Austrailian navy forever.

What are the problems with the F-111? I know it is an old design, but I thought it was a good aircraft.

[2RHPZ]

Australia set to acquire unmanned surveillance aircraft

Australia is set to acquire the latest unmanned aircraft for surveillance and target selection by day and night, the government announced Monday.
Defence Minister Robert Hill said the government would spend 100-million to 150-million Australian dollars (70 million to 105 million US) acquiring a fleet of tactical unmanned surveillance aircraft able to back up land operations.

The new aircraft would be equipped with a sensor system capable of taking video and still images.

"While the aircraft will operate autonomously, it will be remotely commanded and monitored from a ground station where the crew will process the imagery," Hill said in a statement.

He said a trial conducted in the Solomon Islands last year of the small unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) made by Aerosonde, a local subsidiary of a US-based firm, had proved the importance of such capabilities for the Australian Defence Force of the future.

The tactical UAV system would be complemented by a larger high-altitude strategic UAV such as the Global Hawk, he said.

The unmanned aircraft will be operated by the army with a new surveillance and target acquisition regiment to be formed and located in Brisbane.

Hill said the project had attracted worldwide interest and suitable systems were currently in service in many countries, including the United States, Israel, Canada and South Africa.

Tactical UAVs are available in both fixed and rotary wing configurations with aircraft wingspans up to 10 metres and payload capacities of up to 150 kilograms (330 pounds).

The request for tender will be issued at the end of July with bids due by November. Selection of the winner is expected by May 2005.