Dr Dennis Jensen is member for the West Australian seat of Tangney. A former air traffic controller, CSIRO and later Defence research scientist, and defence analyst, he’s widely recognised as one of the rising stars on John Howard’s backbench. He’s played an important part in Australia’s air capability debate, which we’ve discussed previously on Catallaxy here and here.
He’s found himself at odds with the Defence Department leadership over the planned purchase of the F-35 Lightning II, better known as the Joint Strike Fighter. A proponent of the superiority of the F-22A Raptor, he also argues that the F-111 lifespan can be extended at a much lower cost than retiring the ‘Pig’ and purchasing new ‘interim’ fighters. He really knows his stuff, and for this reason Defence have found him very hard to brush off, despite trying very hard.
In this exclusive piece, Dr Jensen argues that the dud F-35 purchasing decision is symptomatic of wider problems in the Canberra defence bureaucracy, and proposes some thoughtful policy solutions. His article is over the fold.
Defence acquisition woes
We’ve all seen reports of Defence acquisition costs blowing out, of programs slipping to the right (in other words, being delayed), of capability requirements not met. Is it really as bad as this - or is this a case of perceptions being incorrect? If it is as bad as the popular press is making out, then what is the problem, and how should it be addressed?
Let’s think about some of the major acquisitions or upgrades that have taken place over the last few years. There was the purchase of the Manoora and Kanimbla, two ships that had significant rust and came into service late and well over budget. We have had the Super Seasprite debacle, which many in industry warned Defence about years ago. A billion odd dollars later, it appears that the project will be scrapped. Then there’s the fast frigate (FFG) upgrade, years overdue and also way over budget. There is also the ARH (Tiger attack helicopter) that was supposedly an off the shelf system, yet it’s late and the specified requirements still have not been met. And that is before we even get to the most expensive purchase in Australia’s history, the New Air Combat Capability (NACC)…
Defence tends to acknowledge problems in the past (if they didn’t, there wouldn’t even be the pretence of being reasonable), but they also go on state that the problems are in the past, and that things are now on track. The problem is the present (and future) tends to replicate the past. Yet, when Defence gives these assurances that all is well, they tend to be believed again and again. This is not just an issue for the Government; the Opposition is fed the same story, with the same result. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) tends to be the only organisation that holds Defence to account through detailed studies. Yet Defence holds this body in contempt and suspicion. Defence often pushes the line that ANAO does not have the requisite detailed understanding of the complexities to analyse their programs correctly.
There is also an inherent problem in the funding model applied to the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), in that the funding for research is under the direction of various two star officers. As such, DSTO is not truly independent of their Defence masters - research efforts and direction are not as independent as they should be. I understand this model came about so that the research undertaken by DSTO would remain relevant to Defence requirements. While I applaud the reason for this policy, it does not serve us well. How can DSTO provide frank and fearless advice when some of the research activity they should conduct is not funded?
New Air Combat Capability - the F-35 Lightning II
The NACC provides a good illustration of how all of the above factors can go wrong at once. This is an acquisition that will cost each man, woman and child in Australia roughly $1000 each!
As Project AIR 6000, DSTO Air Operations Division was to conduct a comparative analysis of the various contenders. They had barely set up an analysis methodology before Defence recommended to Minister Hill that the JSF was the appropriate capability for Australia. Minister Hill accepted that advice, and from that moment analysis of all other contenders was ’switched off’. A mere semblance of a watching brief has followed since.
There were analysts and other interested parties that were concerned about this decision. They voiced their concerns both on the fundamental capability questions and the risks that were likely to eventuate from this program. The Defence leadership not only did not accept or listen to the criticism, they were very aggressive in their approach and at times used ad hominem attacks on those criticising the decision. At that early point they decided to ’situate the appreciation’ as opposed to the desirable (in fact essential) process of ‘appreciating the situation’. What this means is that the Defence leadership decided that the JSF was the answer, and then built up the question premised on this required outcome.
Early on, for example, the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35 variant that we opted for only had space in the internal weapons bays for 1,000 lb weapons, as opposed to the 2,000lb internal weapons capability 
in the F-111. As the Defence leadership had decided to kill the F-111, they stated at the time that the 1,000lb JDAM and the small diameter bomb could do all of the jobs required, and the 2,000lb capability was not necessary. Fast forward a few years, and the CTOL JSF now has a 2,000lb class weapons bay, even though we don’t yet know which 2,000 lb weapons it will be able to safely eject. Much criticism has pointed to the F-22 as the better solution for Australia, compared to the JSF. The F-22 does only have a 1,000lb class internal weapons bay. Result? Suddenly, the ability to carry 2,000lb weapons internally becomes important.
With the NACC, the Defence leadership has decided to attack all suggestions that the F-22 is a better solution. This has taken the form of misleading statements on cost, capabilities and so on. Worse is that the Defence leadership has not recognised the fact that the threat level in the region is increasing significantly. The Defence leadership are betting on so-called network centric warfare (NCW) and stealth, and state that this has changed the nature of air combat. The problem is that purported revolutions in capability - if adopted in the absence of fundamentals - are usually found out at the worst time possible… in an actual shooting war. An example of this is Vietnam, where American F-4 Phantom fighters had no gun - the missile supposedly meant that guns were obsolete. They learned this was not the case, and quickly retrofitted guns. Guns are now standard issue, even on the JSF and F-22!
As to the revolutionary capabilities that Defence leadership is betting on, NCW is really nothing new - it’s simply the ability of a platform to gain awareness of the situation where the situation cannot be directly observed by the platform. Semaphore in the days of sail is an early example of this, where flag signals gave other vessels an appreciation of what was over the horizon. With stealth, the problem is that the JSF is not particularly stealthy from the rear aspect. The Defence leadership is essentially betting that the regional situation will remain stagnant, and that stealthy, supercruising aircraft with network centric capability will not even be in the region by 2040-2050. This is when the NACC is still be expected to be in service.
The risks associated with the program are coming home to roost. The Defence leadership stated that there would be no capability gap between the retirement of the F-111 and F-18, and service introduction of the JSF. They stated publicly - including before Parliamentary Committees as recently as three months ago - that there would be no requirement for an interim solution. Additionally - in their desire to kill the F-111 - they completely oversold apparent risks with F-111 life extension. It now appears very likely that an inferior interim fighter will be purchased, the F/A-18F, to cover the unavailability of the existing F/A-18A Hornet fleet as it is put through life extension upgrades. This is billions more in taxpayers’ money, and yet another aircraft type (there is virtually no commonality between the ‘classic F/A-18′ and the F/A-18F). What’s more, not only does this mean that our relative position in the region compared with other nations in the region deteriorates, but our absolute capability will degrade as well.
We’ve clearly got inherent problems with defence acquisitions, compounded by institutionalised groupthink in the Canberra staff organisation.
What can we do?
I believe that there are a number of things that will improve the situation considerably:
* Decouple the funding of DSTO from Defence. DSTO must have the capability to act and conduct research in a completely independent manner, while still doing the work required to support Defence projects. The DSTO leadership must not be in a subservient position to Defence leadership - there should be completely separate chains of command reporting to the Defence Minister.
* Have DSTO and ANAO personnel integrated with all major Defence acquisitions and project upgrades. Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) will probably need to be dragged kicking and screaming into this, as they will resist these measures and use arguments stating that they will not be able to operate efficiently while hamstrung by these personnel conducting oversight. They will also say that there should only be this sort of oversight when a project gets into trouble. This is nonsense - oversight is required to prevent trouble from occurring.
* A legislated approach to reform. That is, an ‘Aussie Rules’ version of the approach taken in the Goldwater-Nichols Act introduced in the USA in 1986. The degree of reporting and responsibility for acquisitions and upgrades will increase significantly as a result.
* Policy must be put in place to allow robust debate within Defence at all levels on capability issues. There must be no censure of Defence personnel who question capability, doctrine, ideology or the way things are done. So often it is mavericks within defence forces that force the conservative Defence Department to recognise reality.
* Defence must engage with its critics in the Australian community and address their concerns with actions, not disparaging rhetoric. Many in Australia’s Defence reform movement are better qualified professionally than their peers in Defence. Many are also former ADF personnel, with decades of experience and the wisdom gained solving such problems before. Defence must recognise that its critics are a national resource to be used to solve problems in Defence, rather than an unwanted impediment to bureaucratic comfort.
These simple measures have the potential to save Australia billions of dollars. Fixing Defence is critical for Australia’s future. Otherwise - when the time comes - things won’t be right on the night.
134 Comments
Dr Jensen is standing by to discuss his piece and other relevant issues.
Today the Prime Minister appointed a light weight member from a marginal Queensland seat (which just so happens to have Lavarack barracks within its boundaries) to the position of Parlimentary secretary for defence. You are clearly better qualified for such a position. Did the fact that you have advocated the Raptor play any part in your being overlooked for a position which you clearly are much better qualified for than the member for Herbert?
Or is that soimething I can say but you couldn’t possibly think?
Will be back later this evening, SL - I look forward to reading this post then.
.50cal, I am afraid that your point is something I cannot possibly comment on!
What have we already gone and committed ourselves to?
Have we handed over funds?
Signed contracts?
Can we not get some key figures up in the Raptor somehow?
Fly over people who know about this plane and get them an audience with key Labour and Liberal types?
This is about the most upsetting issue I’ve seen in a long time that didn’t involve people dying right away.
GMB, we have signed up to the followon phase of the JSF, but have not signed contracts for orders.
Bit difficult for anyone to be taken up in an F-22-only a single seater.
Dennis, I’m saddened by this piece.
You throw all the blame at our senior defence people when, as we all know, the buck stops with the Minister.
Air force has gone out of its way to justify a decision forced on them by budgeting constraints imposed by the government you represent, and now you’re attacking those loyal people, when they can’t fight back.
I expected better.
You won’t need to fret too long Denis (if the point you can’t comment on is vexing you) Labor have endorsed an outstanding canidate for Herbert so the PS position will be vacant soon enough.
I take it, then, we’re still at the stage where we can back away from the JSF - presumably still at the MOU stage.
Sad and strange to see that your very reasonable-sounding recommendations at the end of your post are encountering any resistance with your fellows in Parliament. Do you have any support at all?
Tony, you are entirely entitled to your opinion. The simple fact is, the domain experts are supposed to be Defence. How is someone in political power supposed to have all of the requisite knowledge over so many areas where the issues are highly technical?
What is required is is a greater level of accountability for decisions and advice that is provided. Additionally, there needs to be advice from other bodies, as indicated in the final section of my article.
We can still back away from the decision. The minister has instructed Defence for a plan B, unfortunately, the way to make plan A look good is by recommending a lousy plan B.
Dr Jensen.
Thanks for your post. In your view, how long would the F18 F (the Superhornet, right?) need to be operated before the JSF came into service. And what would happen to them after that ? Would they be leased from the US Navy, or bought outright ?
“the way to make plan A look good is by recommending a lousy plan B.”
Like ‘your money or your life’.
I’m not constrained by party loyalty, Tony, so I’m quite happy to make the following observation:
Brendan Nelson is an extremely ambitious man who is most anxious not to rock the boat in order to preserve his position. Like Hill before him, he’ll take everything from Defence as gospel truth, even though that organisation’s ability to give appropriate advice has been compromised - for the reasons Dr Jensen outlines.
Well we can back away.
That’s the good news.
Now I suppose this ought to be about how we can help you. And I must confess right now to not getting around to emailing Carlo.
What sort of things should we be doing?
Jimmy, it is likely that the JSF would only reach full capability around 2018.
Selling the Superhornets could be problematic-we operate ours in a very different manner to the USN. That is why we have problems with centre barrel fatigue with our F-18’s, which the USN does not.
The way to help is to communicate your concerns with your local members and senators. Otherwise, it will appear that it is only a select few who have issues
My understanding is that the Superhornets will only be useful to wreckers by then - no-one else will be flying them.
How hard or inappropriate is it for people to put together discrete cross-party discussions on this?
Like for example how difficult would it be for you to get an audience to speak off the record about this with your fellow Western Australian Kim Beazley?
Howard has some regard for Beazley’s views on defense.
Is assembling a cross-party coterie feasible or desirable?
And I won’t share my view of Hill, but suffice to say it is composed largely of words Miss Fiona Lilywhite did not teach me at Sunday School
GMB, the reality is that there are discussions between members of different parties a lot more than most would think.
Outside Question Time, relationships are quite amicable, and a lot of bipartisan effort is put in with committee work etc.
It seems fairly obvious as GMB says that the only way to get any traction on the issue is if the Opposition takes it up. Have you tried to get the Labor Party to support your position? What is the Labor party’s position on the joint strike fighter? Have you been in discussions with the shadow defence Minister on this point?
Or is that something I can suggest but you couldn’t possibly think?
Responding to Tony Healy | January 23rd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
“Air force has gone out of its way to justify a decision forced on them by budgeting constraints imposed by the government you represent, and now you’re attacking those loyal people, when they can’t fight back.”
Tony, this is a cheap shot. I have debated Defence head to head in the parliamentary committees and performed forensic analyses on their work and public statements, repeatedly. Been there done that.
Defence are in deep trouble due to internal underskilling and an ongoing process of purges to get rid of dissenters - ie people with talent. These are the sins of a bureaucracy which is a law unto itself.
If there is one thing I have observed over and over again it is Defence knowingly leading parliamentarians up the garden path with bad advice and cooked numbers.
This is a breakdown of functional integrity within the Defence staff machinery in Canberra.
Rather than admit to the Minister they got something wrong, they more than often concoct elaborate but technically absurd explanations for why they had no choice and it had to be done the way they did it. Ie tough luck, not our fault we did not do our jobs properly ….
As much as Robert Hill annoyed me over the years, in hindsight his biggest failing was unquestioning faith in whatever Defence served up to him.
Yes our parliamentarians need to be tougher and more sceptical when dealing with Defence. But attacking them for giving Defence the benefit of the doubt and their trust is simply unfair. There are only two parliamentarians with the background to even question Defence effectively.
Please bear this in mind.
Well I’m a realist skeptic.
So I like all those guys but it’s just the idea that we have to put pressure on them to see reason.
It’s got to be that they are sticking their necks out NOT to change course.
I am afraid that I am unsure about the Labor Party’s position on this. From what I have observed, they appear unsure of what their position is as well!
I seem to remember pro-F22 whispers during the Latham leadership, but it’s possible everything’s been scrapped.
Well you can’t be much an advocate if you have been unable to convince members of the opposition to take a position which is opposed to government policy. If as you say, relationships are quite amicable why is it that you have you been unable to convince members of the opposition to take up this issue?
.50cal, my job is to support the government to make the right decisions and assist in policy development
Responding to .50cal | January 23rd, 2007 at 7:31 pm
The one thing you don’t want to have happen on something as important as this is for it to go party political. Such important national interest issues such as Defence should be non-partisan.
Remember, this is the legacy we leave our kids and future generations of Australians.
This is why letting your local members and the Joint Standing Committee inquiry know want you think would help.
The ALP has been pretty confused in recent times, they’ve just had a leadership spill, Kruddy probably hasn’t even started to think about the issue.
“Air force has gone out of its way to justify a decision forced on them by budgeting constraints imposed by the government you represent, and now you’re attacking those loyal people, when they can’t fight back.â€
But Tony that cannot be true.
Because it ought to be possible to build up our Stealth Capacity incrementally as we build up an over-capacity with airborne refueling and maintenence.
We ought to be able to build up this capacity with the Raptor as the core canonical device no matter what our budget is.
Even if we are for a very long time only buying one unit per quarter we are helping MacDonald Douglas keep this plane in continuous production and therefore helping them keep their costs down.
And therefore we are helping our most important ally as well as ourselves. So I don’t buy your thesis here. You know your defense stuff and I will always read that stuff of yours line by line.
But you are a partisan man.
You are a very partisan man.
And if I may be so bold a biased man.
And this must be a bipartisan issue.
Parliament should be about properly debating these type of issues. We can never expect either political group to get everything correct. I respect your position, if you are too critical of the government you may lose preselection. But if as is obvious the government won’t listen to its own when it is wrong then the only alternative is to oppose it. And after all, isn’t that what oppositions are supposed to do?
FYI - the F-22 Raptor is a Lockheed Martin/Boeing product.
.50cal, I am not a member of the opposition, so won’t do their work for them.
My job is to discuss and work on these issues within the government, which is what I am doing.
50 cal
There is a role for some people to beat up on the bureaucracy and marshall the public. And there is a role for a distinct group of people to hassle the government of the day. So surely it has to be the good Dr’s job to focus his firepower on the bureaucracy and marshalling public support.
And to leave it to others to set their sites on folks within his own party.
Be practical here. One person can do some things and not others and should concentrate on those things he can do.
Me and you might reel off some nasty emails to the Minister if it comes to that.
I can see where .50cal is coming from. If Defence have succeeded in snowing (some) in the Government, surely the Opposition is duty bound to do something to get a viable alternative out there.
There’s also a danger when policies are bipartisan for bipartisan’s sake. The most notorious example was multiculturalism, which led to all sorts of nasty political bleeds there for a while. I think the electorate does expect ‘brand differentiation’.
“F-22 Raptor is a Lockheed Martin/Boeing product.”
Thanks for that.
I get these people mixed up.
Mind you, I’m not expecting Dr Jensen to do the Opposition’s job. Just expecting the Opposition to do the Opposition’s job.
Yes Tony H, leave the bias stuff at the door throughout this discussion. It’s a good one and there are a lot of us trying to learn about the subject.
To what extent are we seeing regulatory capture on this? An ongoing problem with any attempt to render bureaucracies accountable is the accountability body gets trapped by the bureaucracy - very dangerous.
For those interested, the USAF is planning to bring a couple of F-22s down to Oz for the Avalon Airshow this year.
This would be a great opportunity for our Defence folks and other Australians to get to see the aircraft up close and personal …. and see how it performs in air display against the likes of the Super Hornet.
A colleague in the US has let it be known that the USN had decided not to let the Super Hornet come out to play with the Raptor anymore ’cause it was (understandably) too demoralising for their crews .
However, on the visit to Avalon, at least one media report states there are interested parties who are trying to convince the government not to permit the Raptors to ‘come on down’.
Dr Jensen do you think that your Colleagues by and large understand defense issues?
I mean if you used Carlo’s phrase……
‘The F**k OFF Factor’ amongst your fellow MP’s do they get it?
Or would the left of the Labor party get it?
(Some of the right of the Labor party might understand these things better then most).
Do they think about worst case scenarios and ‘fall-back positions’ much?
Do they think of having a strong Australia that can, in extremis, reach out and touch someone…. would they see that as an ethical necessity? Or do they just take the attitude that we post-moderns have grown a bit beyond all that? Because I wouldn’t want anyone who is not focused on bettering our ability to come out on top in any engagement….
I wouldn’t want anyone not focused on such things influencing policy.
I guess what I’m enquiring about is the general intellectual climate insofar as it impinges on our war-making capacity… and with regards specifically to other MPs.
sketiclawyer, you are right, which is why I have suggested the issue of a body that is “integrated with but independent of”
You wouldn’t know who these people are, by any chance, Horde? (And why does that not surprise me?)
When is the Avalon Air Show btw?
Response to skepticlawyer | January 23rd, 2007 at 8:01 pm
See the latest Special Report by Dr Mark Thomson of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute -
http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=110&pubtype=10
Much of what he says in this report is shared by people in Defence, Industry, and the Parliament.
GMB, the problem is that Defence are supposed to be the domain experts. When they make statements about issues and decisions that are very technical by nature, it is very difficult for them to argue against it, particularly when you do not have a large organisation to form a counterpoint.
ANAO is the exception in this regard, but we need to set up DSTO so that it can be as well.
My colleagues are certainly interested in defence, and want the best capability possible. Unfortunately, we are all pretty much overloaded with work, and the MPs prioritise their interests.
It takes a lot of work to get the expertise and remain current on this stuff, which is why of necessity most accept what Defence say on technical issues, while at the same time recognising that Defence is not beyond, shall we say, gilding the lily.
“For those interested, the USAF is planning to bring a couple of F-22s down to Oz for the Avalon Airshow this year.”
That’s great news.
We need some of these influential people to go right up and touch it.
Feel it.
And it’s particularly good if you reckon its superiority can be displayed in an air show.
But will the Russian plane be there also?
We need to have the enemy plane available.
Look some of you movers and shakers should convince the USAF that they need a bit of a publicity team down here as well if that’s not just standard.
Not just fliers but intellectual advocates.
Get Loren Thompson if you have to.
And that fellow Deptula.
Crikey. What a disaster. This para leapt out at me:
Accountability, gee whiz. And people wonder why us libertarians are always carrying on about government stuff-ups.
Carlo, surely the deskilling and hollowing out of air force occurred under the Howard government, under the attractive mantra of cutting costs and being more efficient.
And air force people are not stupid, both in a career sense, and in a technology sense. They know the F-22 is better. Witness Pete Criss’s public statements, now that he’s retired.
I apologise that some of you think this is partisan. Personally I hate writing “the Howard government,” but that seems to be what’s required. I have no affiliation with any political party.
I find this piece disappointing because Dennis could have taken the opportunity to explain the role and intentions of the government he represents, but instead we seem to have a PR piece intended to deflect attention from the government’s role.
GMB, I agree it would be nice to consider augmenting the JSF fleet with at least some F-22s. Why isn’t Dennis discussing those types of options?
“GMB, the problem is that Defence are supposed to be the domain experts.”
Right.
I don’t know if you’ve read any of our discussions. But the one thing I’ve differed from our experts about is SACKINGS. The way Carlo tells it the bureaucracy looks after itself and winds up saving the fat and sacking the meat.
My thesis is that we need to have a different relationship between the bureaucracy and the elected reps and that elected reps should be getting non-elected-rep tax-eaters to clear their desk all the time as a no-blame matter of course.
So far this advocacy of a totally different class system is yet to take hold.
But I cannot see how you can correct organistional dysfunction without mass-sackings and hirings. You as a rep should be able to find someone you think would be a positive force in the department… And then you could fire three people arbitrarily to make way for him.
Because I take an almost Saint Augustine view of human organisations. In that I think they tend towards dysfunction sin and error as a matter of course. And that its only happenstance and evidence of individual heroism if they just happen to be working well for a short time.
Response to skepticlawyer | January 23rd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Airshow Downunder 2007 is on 20 - 25 March.
See -
http://www.airshow.net.au/
As to who, don’t know all of them but hint some would have interests in selling other aircraft to Australia, along with the very few but powerful individuals in the Defence Department who support this idea. Also, let’s not forget the unelected officials in Canberra who think they are the Ministers and the Government they ’serve’. Just ask ask any Commonwealth Car Driver - they’ll point ‘em out to you.
Tony, on your question of my position, have a look at my submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the New Air Combat Capability.
The problem is not one of the government, but of the Department and institutionalised groupthink. Many I have spoken to in Defence have very real concerns, but cannot say so publicly. That is a very real problem. The groupthink is the thing that we need to get rid of.
Probably because we’ve already had a big discussion on exactly that issue already, Tony - you were a lively and thoughtful participant, too IIRC.
And I think Howard should carry the can for some of it, yes. However, it’s pretty clear the problem has been hanging around like a bad smell for years - witness Dr Jensen’s catalogue of FUBARs in his post. Governments of all stripes have allowed it to fester, and now we have ASPI coming out and saying, ‘Houston, we have a problem’.
Hi Dennis, interesting post – it’s refreshing to see some serious defence related discussions on the net.
I’m curious about your central point is, as it seems lost on me. Certainly few people will disagree that there are many problems with defence acquisitions, as your introductory laundry list demonstrates.
It seems to me you have three central issues:
1. That Defence’s acquisition process needs closer oversight and a complete overhaul.
2. F-35 is being forced on the government by Defence bureaucrats who are taking advantage of the lack of oversight involved in the acquisition process. The F-22 is superior and should be chosen.
3. The F-111 should not be retired and that Defence bureaucrats have overstated the problems associated with maintaining the type in Australian service.
My apologies if I have grossly oversimplified or missed anything. I’m sure I’ll be corrected if this is the case.
I’m not going to address the first point, as any sane person would have to agree with you. Good luck to the person who goes into R2 and manages to change anything, though.
Your second point is problematic for me, particularly as you say that Defence makes misleading statements about the capabilities and costs of the F-22. The simple fact is that F-22 is an air-superiority fighter – without doubt the world’s best. It’s ability to act in other roles (strike, CAS) is constrained by the original USAF design brief from the 80s. Also undeniably is the massive cost associated with individual F-22s. It’s simple economics, the USAF remains the only customer (and a reasonably small one at that) of the F-22. The unit costs are, therefore, much higher than the projected unit costs of the F-35.
What proponents of the F-22 need to do is present a reasonable argument that the increased cost of the F-22, relative to that of the F-35, represents a similarly increased capability for the RAAF. It is not clear that this is the case, particularly as the F-22 is a rather narrowly conceived Cold War era air superiority fighter.
Given the realities of the RAAF’s budget environment (realities imposed by your government, I might add), can the RAAF afford such a narrowly conceived aircraft when other, cheaper aircraft are being offered?
Certainly, the F-35 remains unproven and the combination of CTOL and STOVL into a similar airframe is problematic. But the F-35 promises to be a stealthy multi-role aircraft. It represents the best value for the RAAF’s limited money. It’s not the master work that is the F-22, but in terms of what Australia is looking for, it’s nearly perfect.
The F-111, on the other hand, is far from perfect and it’s the reason why USAF retired it from service many years ago. The costs associated with maintaining this old airframe are very high and are well known. And let’s not forget that as the sole remaining user of this type, the RAAF bears the costs for integrating newer and more modern weapons systems. Need I remind of the disastrous attempts to integrate the AIM-142?
The fact is (and Carlo might vehemently disagree) the F-111 is a relic that RAAF can ill afford to maintain. The sooner it’s retired the better. Furthermore, it’s a disingenuous benchmark used to compare mooted replacements. The air defence environment in the region is increasingly unkind to fast/low craft. Low observability precision delivery of munitions is the answer.
Yes, the F-111 can deliver an impressive number of (rather dumb) munitions at high speed and low altitude. But the world, and Asia’s, air defence environment has moved on.
So should the F-111 advocates.
I’m curious, do you think Australia has lost its regional air superiority yet?
“Carlo, surely the deskilling and hollowing out of air force occurred under the Howard government, under the attractive mantra of cutting costs and being more efficient.”
Fella I was just horrified when you told us about the managment consultant imperative of cutting maintenance and engineering staff.
Statecraft requires being able to snap your fingers and if it is required all the planes ought to be able to be in the air with more then enough refuelers and more then enough stored fuel and ordnance…….
And when they come down there should be the oversupply of maintenance staff working on them like a Grand Prix PITSTOP! I was scandalised about this but we have to focus on influencing the Howard Government in the first instance and not on bringing them down when we speak here together… Then as individuals those of us who aren’t Liberals and are Labour guys can try and use this issue to bring the Liberals down in the lead-up to an election.
But we get together to influence them.
When we go our seperate ways those of us in the Labour camp are free to (and in fact ought to and perhaps MUST) use this issue to try and TAKE THEM OUT.
Following up on Dennis | January 23rd, 2007 at 8:20 pm
People in Defence with real concerns also can’t say so within the organisation for fear of getting it in the neck. That is one of the 8 recognised traits of ‘groupthink’ - the mindguards work to ensure conformance and compliance with the ‘groupthink’ is maintained.
Put simply, groupthink is when individually smart and rational people, collectively make really, really dumb decisions.
Dr Jensen is right - this organisational disease in Defence needs to be eradicated, once and for all.
The bizarre thing about all of this is that this affliction is well documented and understood and the treatments are very simple and easy to implement. However, the hard part is getting folks to acknowledge and accept the organisation is infected, principally because, as the majority of the case studies show, like a fish, the rot starts with the head.
Mathew, before Dr Jensen hops in, I’ll just let you know that we had lengthy (and informative) discussion of some of the issues you raise here.
” The simple fact is that F-22 is an air-superiority fighter – without doubt the world’s best.
It’s ability to act in other roles (strike, CAS) is constrained by the original USAF design brief from the 80s.”
Dogfighting superiority is the first duty of an airforce. Since this amounts to the capacity to prevail in the age-old military imperative of capturing the high ground.
” The simple fact is that F-22 is an air-superiority fighter – without doubt the world’s best. ”
The simple fact is that you’ve been misinformed.
Since Mr Deptula says that this plane can be used for:
(Here I quote my own interpretation from earlier today)
Matthew B, very thoughtful post.
At the time defence made the recommendation, it probably did seem like a good idea. The fact is, though, a lot has happened. The JSF program has blown out about 40% since 2002 for the same number of airframes. The program is slipping.
The F-22, OTOH, is coming down in price, and the price differential is nowhere near what Defence makes out. You mention air superiority heritage limiting it. What about the F-15, which was designed with foot high letters in the program office declaring “not a pound for air to ground”? The F-15E is an incredibly good strike aircraft.
The chief of the USAF has proclaimed the F-22 as one of the best bombers the US has ever had. The E-10 multimission aircraft has been cancelled because the F-22 is so good in the intelligence gathering role.
The only air-ground munition on the JSF list that is not on the F-22 list is a heritage Paveway laser guided bomb - there is a JDAM laser guided variant under development that will be on the F-22 list.
The F-111 is nowhere near the maintenance headache made out. It had one of the highest, if not the highest, availability rates at recent Red Flag exercises. No F-111 was “shot down”, but F-18s were!
AGM-142 was a program that was run in a deficient manner. If there was the mechanism that I propose in force at the time, there would not have been the problem.
Matthew, again before Dr Jensen hops in, the arguments you seek have been put and can be found in the submissions to the JSCFADT inquiry into air superiority, particularly Submissions 20 and 29. These may be found at -
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs.htm
If you would like further background reading, you might also take a look at the transcripts and submissions to the JSCFADT Reveiw of Defence Annual Report 2002-03 which may be found at -
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2002_2003/report.htm
Unfortunately, many of your assertions and premises are the same as those of senior defence officials which have been shown in these references not to be supported by fact. Hope this helps
“Mathew, before Dr Jensen hops in, I’ll just let you know that we had lengthy (and informative) discussion of some of the issues you raise here.”
And don’t forget here……..
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2277
And the first third only of the introduction thread.
Thanks Graeme, forgot that one. There’s an excellent piece on the end of that link, too.
On AGM-142, the problems (and resulting cost and schedule blowouts) were programmatic. For instance, over a year was spent doing studies and reports that DAO/DMO/Defence wanted done - most of which were superfluous (aka. ‘dust collectors’).
Once folks got onto the jet and underway, things went relatively smoothly and the resulting capability is awesome.
“That is one of the 8 recognised traits of ‘groupthink’ - the mindguards work to ensure conformance and compliance with the ‘groupthink’ is maintained.”
Eight hey?
Probably eleven if you’re a woman
This I need a link on. Because it’s everywhere. It hobbles all our debates. It must be something they brand on people along with their post-graduate degrees and only a lucky few escape its influence.
Just letting people know that Dr Jensen needs to take a half-hour break in about 15 minutes in order to grab a bite to eat. He will be back afterwards, though.
Response to GMB | January 23rd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Hi GMB,
The link you are after -
http://www.ausairpower.net/apa-analyses.html
Go to the analysis entitled, ‘The Root Cause of What Ails Defence, Today’
aka ‘Everything you wanted to know about groupthink but were afraid to ask’
Also plenty of citations and references if you wish to dig any deeper.
The minister has instructed Defence for a plan B, unfortunately, the way to make plan A look good is by recommending a lousy plan B.
Talk about Yes Minister.
Very interesting post, Doc - thanks.
I’m not really sure what the point is in importuning Dr Jensen to discuss the whole shooting match with Labor. And, Tony, I would have thought these frankly expressed doubts about where this purchase is heading speak more of a consensus-building whistleblower than a partisan spin-doctor.
SL, Robert McClelland made this observation re the F-22 in August of last year:
Dr Jensen, a question: bureaucracy, the Minister (whoever that may be at the time), inertia etc etc aside - isn’t this ultimately such a huge strategic and financial matter that a Prime Minister (whoever that may be at the time) has to take the lead?
Responding to Tony Healy | January 23rd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
“Carlo, surely the deskilling and hollowing out of air force occurred under the Howard government, under the attractive mantra of cutting costs and being more efficient.”
This rot started well before 1996, and is well documented - refer ACDRE Bushell’s excellent treatise at http://www.ausairpower.net/apa-analyses.html
What the bureaucracy did do is exploit the opportunity presented by the Moore ministry’s attempts to cut wastage and wiped out as much uniformed ADF talent as they could.
If I were to fault the Howard government it is for trusting the Russell bureaucracy for far too long.
“And air force people are not stupid, both in a career sense, and in a technology sense. They know the F-22 is better. Witness Pete Criss’s public statements, now that he’s retired.”
I think you are missing my point. AVM Criss, whom I have known for many years, was one of the victims of this successful bureaucratic coup.
The problem with Defence now is that with too much talent driven out of the organisation too few people understand these issues.
“I apologise that some of you think this is partisan. Personally I hate writing “the Howard government,†but that seems to be what’s required. I have no affiliation with any political party.”
I think you need to look at this problem in more depth. Blaming one Government for a problem which has been festering away unabated for 30 years is unfair. The Howard Govt inherited this from the ALP, who inherited it from Fraser, after it went bad during the Whitlam era.
No Government since the 1970s has bitten the bullet on this problem.
“I find this piece disappointing because Dennis could have taken the opportunity to explain the role and intentions of the government he represents, but instead we seem to have a PR piece intended to deflect attention from the government’s role.”
I disagree. Read what Dennis said more carefully.
“GMB, I agree it would be nice to consider augmenting the JSF fleet with at least some F-22s. Why isn’t Dennis discussing those types of options? ”
Because the JSF is not a good fit for our force structure. Having done the analysis several times over since 1999, I can assure you that the JSF - and the Super Hornet - are too small and inadequate performancewise. Too small to be good bombers, and lacking the performance for effective air combat.
If you want to have JSFs in the force structure you end up with a three type force, having to create a niche for the JSF simply for the purpose of operating the JSF.
CL (and please call me Dennis, I’m not formal), the reality is that, among other things, Defence leadership would have to come to the recognition that time had moved on the decision, and things are now a little different. However, it seems difficult within the Defence organisation to admit to mistakes.
Everyone makes mistakes, fact of life. It is learning from them (or not) that is the issue.
Responding to Mathew B | January 23rd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
“Your second point is problematic for me, particularly as you say that Defence makes misleading statements about the capabilities and costs of the F-22. The simple fact is that F-22 is an air-superiority fighter – without doubt the world’s best. It’s ability to act in other roles (strike, CAS) is constrained by the original USAF design brief from the 80s.”
The F-22 is not as limited as you might imagine in the strike role - Defence like to portray it as such.
It internal bombload is essentially the same as the specialised bomber JSF - 2 x JDAM smart bombs, or 8 x SDB smart bombs.
Where it differs is in survivability - the F-22 can fly where no JSF would ever survive.
Not much point in extolling the virtues of the JSF over the F-22 as a bomber, if your JSFs don’t come home from sorties
If you want to learn more about the F-22 check out this item:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html
You might be surprised at the bombing capabilities it has.
Thank you very much for that Horde.
I will use it to beat dumb-left-wingers over the head for many years to come no doubt.
Now I want, mainly for third parties, to post a video of what will become no doubt the standard enemy plan. And since dog-fighting superiority is the first duty of any airforce in line with the notion of capturing the higher ground…….. I want to impress on people that we SHOULD NOT BUY ONE NEW FIGHTER…… We should not throw a dollar away buying one new fighter that we cannot put up against this BAD BOY and bring our pilots home safely to MAMA.
I’m not being the least bit flippant here.
We can keep and upgrade the old planes if they have duties to do once we have total control over our airspace and that airspace to the far side of Indonesia. But we ought not buy a single plane that might be expected to get in a dogfight that we cannot justify to the mums and dads and wives and kids and grandparents of the pilots in relation to this plane………THIS PLANE that you are about to see here before you.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2002313961490667235
See the way he maneovres. See the way he goes into a bat-plane-like dead-stop. This is my way of breaking down the issue to its most stark.
The fact is that in broad daylight we’d probably need three of our stealths to cover this plane and be confident of getting all three pilots and Raptors home safely.
But we do not have a chance if we put a Hornet up against this bad boy. Now even the defense hierarchy ought to be able to understand the real issue when it’s explained simply to them like this. It is beneath the HONOUR of this Great Island Nation to send our brave boys against this Evil Russian Beast in a Flying Outhouse.
And we should end the career of any taxeater that says otherwise.
I’m back for those still on
I think they’re digesting the implications of what we’ve discussed… it’s a large issue.
I must admit I had no idea this defence bureaucracy issue goes back to the early 70s. Incredible. Oh well, the festering sore bursts open on your watch.
Ouch!!!!!!! Thanks very much ;(
Dennis.
The way I’ve simplified the issue down in post 72.
I myself think that this condenses the REAL issues and is a true and useful melodromatic way to put things on the grounds that it happens to be the right way to put things.
But do you see any INTELLECTUAL flaws in the argument?
GMB, no, not really. Fact that you correctly point out is that without air superiority, everything else becomes almost unachievable.
Wow, Bird. I didn’t know a plane could actually do that. So when Maverick said he was going to put on the breaks in Top Gun so the Dastardly Communists would “fly right by”, it was a realistic call.
Brakes, rather.
Cool video Bird, but isn’t the Su37 really a Su27 upgrade, ie like a Superhornet but not a genuine 5th generation multirole aircraft ?
Ahh, but the classic flying film is Flight of the Intruder. It actually bothers to be accurate - expressions like ‘I’ve got bingo fuel’ etc. Well worth a look.
On a more serious note, I’d like to thank Catallaxians for making Dr Jensen very welcome. He’ll drop in a couple more times this evening to see if you’ve got any more questions (he’s in WA, remember) though.
Dennis, what is your own program for pursuing the Raptor/JSF matter in 2007?
….sorry, forgot to add that airshow test pilots can do what was in the video in other aircraft - I saw a guy in a Rafaele, then in a Typhoon (Eurofighter) do this at the Dubai Air Show in 1999.
In relation to the above, I am in no way saying, btw, that this means the JSF is the only, or best, option.
Thanks for organizing that, SL. Cool stuff. Sometimes you need to just keep quiet and read the conversation.
Thanks
Yeah and I think the kiddies need to know this.
I’m sure that at night our Raptor, one-on-one would have the advantage. But we don’t want to just have the advantage. We want to get man and technological beast home safely every time and always. If we have a Russian plane and a Stealth to cover any Russian plane of the enemies.
Or if we have three Stealths…..
Then perhaps we can always bring the boys home. But to send an inferior plane up against these Russian planes is unbecoming and a suicide mission. Why the flying-f*cking-outhouse would we buy them in the first place? So very quickly if we DON’T GET THIS RIGHT we become the neigbourhood weakling.
As a consequence of this and American debts what will likely happen from there is a generalised lawlessness between states to our North and following hard on those heels a slowly creeping Chinese mainland hegemony.
That’s why this is a MORAL issue.
We must be a powerful Southern Anchor and help maintain Japanese, Taiwanese and South Korean confidence….
…And as well help maintain a sort of normalcy of lawfulness between the smaller states to our North…..
(not by intervention but by a massive latent power)… until such time as the Chinese Demographic collapse is fully established.
And here we have a chance to play a constructive role and our guys are pissing it away like 7 year olds that get the rugby ball and run backwards.
This is a MORAL issue. And its just one of these things that come up from time to time where the whole future of humane civilisation could quite well be hanging on the things we do in the here and now.
CL I don’t think it WAS a realistic call for Maverick.
IT’S A REALISTIC CALL FOR THE RUSSIAN PLANE AND THAT’S THE POINT.
This plane is now the most maneouvreable plane in the world.
And if they sell it to our neighbours, and they will, and we don’t have the Stealth we are the regional sissies and that’s about all there is to it.
“Cool video Bird, but isn’t the Su37 really a Su27 upgrade, ie like a Superhornet but not a genuine 5th generation multirole aircraft ?”
Yes that’s true.
But what I’m saying is the first step is always to win the dogfights.
And if we cannot beat the enemy plane on that score then we are nothing and people won’t even listen when we talk.
And when it all comes down to it we wouldn’t DESERVE to have them listen.
Graeme, you’re being complimented greatly on the teaser thread. Aren’t your ears burning?
So the Raptor is equal to or better than this Russian machine, yes?
Better, CL - due to stealth and better avionics - but the Sukhoi is very good, and particularly notable for its tremendous range.
The Russian plane ought to be better one on one in the daylight if the Russian plane pilot sees the other plane first.
Under all other circumstances the Stealth ought to be superior.
This is my inductive view.
I don’t know anything about defence issues, and most of this has gone way over my head, but the entire concept has a great deal of value- thanks to Catallaxy for organising and hosting this.
Thanks, Scott. We’ve got various people lined up over the rest of the year (including, I hope, a pretty special cricket writer) that will appeal to different sections of our readership.
I presume you mean Gideon. I hope you don’t mean Peter Roebuck.
I bought Roebuck’s latest books, and it has several alarming basic errors of fact that make you wonder sometimes.
By the way, I went to watch England vs New Zealand today. Another hilarious batting collapse by England.
“I don’t know anything about defence issues, and most of this has gone way over my head, but the entire concept has a great deal of value- thanks to Catallaxy for organising and hosting this.”
Everything we wanted to say I believe is there.
What you don’t understand you will understand I believe if you just read this thread over and over and over.
We were lucky with this one I think.
Somebody’s horoscope just hit with the right harmonics I think.
Not Peter Roebuck, that’s for sure, Scott. I find him immensily irritating.
Dennis:
Over the years, your Party has done me a great deal of harm …… but ….. having said that, it’s nice to see you here ….. even if some of us might disagree with your position on air defence.
Unfortunately, much of the discussion here is only wishful thinking until one serious problem is recognized ….and addressed …..CORRUPTION.
I myself have never seen brown paper-bags full of used banknotes passed by under the desk of anyone involved in Defence procurement by representatives of defence technology and aerospace corporations.
No, but we ordinary voters and taxpayers are expected to believe, as a matter of faith and hope, that people who, in every other part of their professional lives are intelligent, experienced, educated, dynamic, critical, capable of handling complex situa