With the Abbott Government’s inaugural budget now behind us, the debate over whether it is effective or not, fair or unfair, will no doubt continue for some time.
Overall however, Defence fared quite well – and better than many portfolios. You can read all about the Defence budget in detail in the pages of this issue, with analysis from subject matter experts such as ASPI’s Mark Thomson and AI Group’s John O’Callaghan.
In the weeks prior to the budget, the Government announced major capability acquisitions, such as the P-8A Poseidon and the intention to acquire the MQ-4C Triton, depending on the successful completion of its development program.
But it was the decision to go ahead with the second stage of the RAAF’s New Air Combat Capability and acquire what is now a total of 72 Joint Strike Fighters - plus a subsequent interview with new NACC chief, AVM Chris Deeble - which set me thinking.
The Joint Strike Fighter – or Joint Strike Target as I’ve heard it described, alluding to the fact that it has so many detractors – is easy to criticise in many ways. It is undeniably late, undeniably more expensive than first forecast and still has a significant amount of risk remaining.
But here’s the thing. I have been writing about the aircraft in an Australian context for more than ten years and have probably written tens of thousands of words, interviewed dozens if not hundreds of people connected with both the US and Australian programs over that time. Even my media release file on the aircraft is rapidly approaching three thousand pages. But I am yet to hear any criticism of its capabilities from anybody with an insider’s knowledge.
Even after a decade or more of covering the Joint Strike Fighter program.
Certainly I am very much a layman. I don’t have a fighter pilot’s knowledge of modern air combat, nor am I an aerodynamicist or radar specialist, and it’s hard to gain an appreciation of the F-35s full capabilities without having access to classified information.
But everyone who have been privy to the aircraft’s full capabilities becomes an ardent supporter. At least all the people I have spoken to over that time.
The point I’m trying to make is that it’s easy to criticise certain qualities of the aircraft with the benefit of some knowledge, and the detractors will not go away overnight, if ever. But those with enough knowledge are its biggest supporters, and enthusiastic ones at that.
Another factor is the advantages the program has brought to Australian industry, though again there will be critics claiming that the NACC project office’s conservative (their words) projections of $1.5 billion of work, and likely more, is not enough.
Besides a dollar value, the Joint Strike Fighter project has taught Australian industry how to compete in a global market place and win work on other large programs. In a time when we are losing some larger traditional manufacturing capability, Australian companies are winning work against international competition.
However much that is, it can only be a good thing.
I know that any comment on the JSF program will attract opinion from both sides of the debate, but until all of the details are explained – and they never will be – I do not feel I am qualified to judge its capabilities.
But I will continue speaking with the people who are intimately involved with the program and report facts, not opinion, and others more qualified can judge them on their merits.
The fact is, Australia has now committed to the F-35A, as the cornerstone of its air combat capability for a very long time and perhaps now we all just need to accept that and get on with ensuring Australia derives all the benefits it possibly can from the project, particularly in terms of more work for Australian industry, in the years to come.
And finally in what may be a deliberate (and ultimately successful) attempt to confuse ADM’s Acting Editor, Defence has changed the way it refers to projects.
Some of the more vigilant readers will note JP9000 Phase 7 (Helicopter Aircrew Training System), or Land 2072 Phase 2B (Battlespace Communications System – Land) referred to in our budget coverage for example. The logic behind this is explained in the budget portfolio statement:
“Defence has adopted the Joint Capability Authority (JCA) framework, which assigns a single senior officer responsible for capability realisation,” it reads.
“To align within this framework project prefixes have been amended to align with Project Realisation Manager.”
This means that Army helicopter projects will attract the ‘Land’ prefix, rather than ‘Air’ for example and the new ‘Corp’ prefix has been established for projects delivering enterprise support functions, such as personnel and financial systems.
Happily the project numbers themselves have not changed, but I’m guessing there is work to be done to rewrite all the ready-reference tables across Defence.
