Joint Strike Fighter Imboglio - Open Letter to Sen Johnson

Senator the Honourable David Johnston

Minister for Defence

PO Box 6100

Canberra ACT 2600

 

Dear Senator Johnston

My letter concerns future acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter.

The recent fire in the engine of a Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) highlights the risk that Australia on your watch could be left without an operational air combat capability in the JSF fleet should similar incidents occur in the future. The malfeasance inherent in “concurrency” whereby aircraft are tested and manufactured at the same time leaves our future fleet vulnerable to being grounded for a currently ‘unknown unknown’ problem. This would be a national security embarrassment greater than having the entire Collins submarine fleet in for repairs at the same time. If you doubt this I suggest obtaining an independent (non-Defence Department) review of the inherent risks in the JSF project.

I write to suggest a practical and face-saving way out of what has become the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) dilemma. The dilemma consists of the following:

1.       The JSF is a proven failure, already obsolete, with well documented fundamental design flaws that cannot be remedied by future upgrades.

2.       Defence has never compared JSF combat performance point by point with reference threats out to 2030. Such analysis as has been done found that the JSF was massacred in any ‘hot war’ scenario and locked out of contested airspace by modern IADS.[1]

3.       Over ten years senior defence bureaucrats and former defence ministers from both sides of politics have wedded themselves to the project to the extent that they are now in a classic ‘prisoner’s dilemma’.

4.       In the current fiscal environment the true cost of the project is unsustainable over time.[2]

5.       Australia has already committed to the delivery of 14 JSF units.

6.       The Superhornet is too slow and insufficiently stealthy to be a serious air combat contender.[3]

7.       Having retired the F-111 Australia is now without an effective air combat capability.

So let’s look at what we have.

The Superhornet is optimised as a reliable medium sized bomb truck with self-defence and EW capability, but not as an air dominance fighter. As a naval aircraft it carries the tomahawk anti shipping missile. Used as a naval strike asset the Superhornet can assist the RAN in sea defence. Used in the close air support role it may plug a big gap left by our lack of armour and mobile artillery. The Superhornet could and should be tasked primarily to these roles.

The JSF is a networking platform with limited stealth. Our best hope is that the JSF will deliver on the promise to be a capable networking platform. In this role 14 JSF may be valuable force-multipliers as ‘eyes in the sky’ along with Wedgetail. The investment in 14 JSF is therefore best leveraged by networking them with a capable air-to-air platform. In this model they are protected by air dominance fighters but assist the same by enhancing their situational awareness.

The task of chasing and shooting down evolved Sukhois, the Chinese J-20 or the Russian PAK-FA demands a top end high performance combat aircraft – which takes us back to where this all began when the AIR6000 project cancelled was and no comparison of available aircraft allowed. This the JSF cannot do for reasons inherent in the design - too small, too heavy, too tightly packed, too slow, only four missiles in stealth mode, can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run, and these problems cannot be overcome by future upgrades. I refer you to the literature.

Australia can still obtain and use 14 JSF but save billions and protect our sovereignty by finally engaging in realistic comparison of available aircraft against regional reference threats, namely the evolved Sukhoi, the J-20, the PAK-KA, double digit Russian and Chinese SAMs and modern IADS. I do not wish to pre-empt what actual research might find, but note that, if our diplomatic arrangements require us to purchase planes from the US, then the ‘Silent Eagle’ program should be considered. This program fields a genuine mach 2+ twin engine combat aircraft at roughly half the unit price of the JSF with none of the inherent risk. The Swedish JAS Grippen program is perhaps the most affordable while delivering supercruise and credible performance against the evolved Sukhoi[4].

In this manner Australia can have a diversified, flexible and affordable RAAF combat capability that:

·         honours our existing commitments;

·         maximises the utility of existing platforms;

·         plugs gaps in our land force inventory; and

·         provides air-to-air combat capability which the JSF alone cannot provide.

This model replicated the highly successful USAF model in which types of specialist aircraft were combined in ‘packages’. While conventional wisdom now favours a single aircraft type this leaves defence highly vulnerable if problems develop. I note that the entire F-22 fleet and the entire JSF fleet have been grounded in recent years. Australia successfully fielded both the FA-18 and the F-111, and now intends to field the Superhornet and the JSF. The addition of an air dominance fighter to this mix is now the only viable way forward.

I therefore request that you raise with you cabinet colleagues the option of acquiring an air dominance fighter in preference to purchasing more JSF.

I further request that you discuss with operational commanders options to best utilise current and future aircraft inventories in combat.

I also request that you engage non Department of Defence experts in a genuine assessment of risks inherent in the JSF program and what that may mean for Australia’s future defence.

This letter does not require a written response. However please note that I have studied this issue in depth over 10 years and written extensively on it. Please therefore spare yourself the indignity and me the tedium of including any of the following in any response:

·         a ‘cut and paste’ statement from the Lockheed Martin publicity office e.g. ‘unrivalled fifth generation capability…sensor fusion…unparalleled situational awareness…let the missiles do the turning...bla bla;

·         a statement expressing confidence in the project without reference to anything real;

·         a statement to the effect that because the Americans have confidence in the program (they don’t) it must therefore magically be able to shoot down Russian and Chinese stealth fighters (it can’t);

·         a statement to the effect that because a number of northern hemisphere nations have bought into the program it must be right for Australia (this is contrary to analysis); or

·         a statement to the effect that the program is too big to fail so it must be OK.

Yours sincerely

Erik Peacock

---

[1] See analysis by Dr John Stillion of Rand Corp, Air Power Australia, and Eagle Vision Ltd. See also the leak to Vanity Fair, and reports to US Congress.

[2] Cost is defined as ‘what you pay for the capability you get over the life of the aircraft’ and includes training, tooling, parts, maintenance, weapons, fuel, changes to facilities and basing, simulators etc. The true cost likely to be well over AUS$30 billion.

[3] I refer to Air Power Australia analysis since no other analysis was undertaken.

[4] Pers Comm Chris Mills CEO Eagle Vision Ltd

 

Joint Strike Fighter and Ukraine Crisis

Anachronisms in the New Cold War

It’s Official – the Cold War is back-on. Putin has declared his doctrine that any place that has a significant Russian speaking population is “new Russia” and he reserves the right to invade and occupy any part of any country that has a substantial Russian speaking population. That includes all the old Cold War buffer States and their modern derivatives – Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Ukraine… Russia is no longer a country but the ‘greater protectorate of Russians speakers’ with fluid and flexible boundaries. It’s how you make friends and piss-off people.

So is Putin just an ego driven Tsar? Perhaps but….

In the early 1990’s Mikhail Gorbachev surrendered the Soviet Union, opened up the Soviet economy, freed his people, and ended the Cold War. He asked one and one condition only of the West – no Eastward expansion of NATO. Reagan promised that it would be so. It was not.

Essentially Russia wanted their own version of the Monroe doctrine – the right to meddle and be pre-eminent in their own back yard. However unlike the US they have genuine reasons. Western European powers have twice invaded Russia, on both occasions reaching Moscow. Accounts of Russian dead in WWII vary from 30-40 million. It is an oft overlooked fact of history that Russia won the Second World War in Europe. They did not and do not want NATO on their doorstep. They did want economic development and mutual respect. They got neither.

Western capital asset stripped the former Soviet Union plunging much of the society into poverty and creating a demographic crisis from which Russia may never recover. NATO courted the eastern states. Russia found itself surrounded by US/NATO military bases, while the US actively sponsored Islamic terrorism across the 20/40 window resulting in the Beslan massacre.  NATO bombed Yugoslavia then created a new Muslim state in Europe carved out of historic Serbia. The ‘Coalition of the Willing’ then went on a rampage across the Middle East liquidating Russian assets as they went. The ‘Project for a New American Century’ boldly proclaimed that the US would invade Iran after Iraq was dealt with, thus further encircling the Russian block. The ‘Great Game’ for the Eurasian pivot was back-on. Central to this Pivot is Crimea - home of much of Russia's Western Navy.

It didn’t go quite as planned however. Putin kicked out the oligarchs who ruled Russia, took control of Russia’s critical national resources, re-financed the military, and pulled his country up by its collar. The military adventure in the Middle East was halted by a concerted insurgency in Iraq and resistance among Western populations. Western oligarchs then raided the US and European banking systems creating a systemic crisis which is still playing out, has made Russia very sceptical abojut all the talk of "freedom and democracy" but has not touched the military industrial complex in the US or the JSF program.

…so back to Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO member. Latvia is. If Russia were to send forces across the border to Latvia NATO would automatically be at war with Russia. So Putin gambles that the US will only play proxy wars in Ukraine and he can create a pretext for expanding his borders West-ward. At least he hasn’t claimed that Ukraine has weapons of mass destruction, or that they harbour Al Qaeda, or that they gas their citizens.  But wait – he should be scared! The US and its sort-of-willing allies just spent US $400 billion on the Joint Strike Fighter. Australia just pitched in with a $14 billion purchase of a couple of squadrons. If you heard or read any of the hyperbole surrounding the purchase you will have learned that this is a radar evading aircraft that will have complete situational awareness and will guarantee victory in all future air combat environments for decades to come. With that kind of kit potentially heading his way Putin should be cowering in a fox hole – right?

Ironically the ABC radio news reader actually used phrases I recognised from the manufacturer’s public relations Office from circa 2008. Funny thing is, no one is scared because no one else believes it, least of all the Russians. The reason is simple. After the collapse of the USSR the Russian military industrial complex had to create competitive weapons or starve. Hunger is very motivating. The result was bleeding edge, cheap and lethal systems such as the many variants of the Sukhoi air dominance fighter – now the baseline for air power in the Asia Pacific as well as Eastern Europe. The Western military industrial complex figured it could just get fat by putting ‘their’ people into key decision making positions in the bureaucracy then bleeding tax payers to subsidise uncompetitive make-work programs. The most expensive of these is the Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF.

The JSF was originally conceived as a second tier second day of war ground attack aircraft. It was intended to operate in a relatively benign air power environment and under cover of the much more capable F-22. Its primary concern was to attack Soviet mobile columns on the North German plains and to avoid mobile Soviet surface to air missile systems as they were circa 1990. That was and is its primary design criteria. To that end it was made ‘stealthy’ i.e. hard to detect by radars operating in the X band but only from the frontal aspect, and was given limited self defensive capabilities. This very limited functionality was then ‘spun’ into being the supposed air dominance fighter of the 21^st century. It isn’t. Russian radars operating in the longer bands (S and L) can see it and shoot it down. The Sukhoi flies higher, faster, turns quicker, carries 11 missiles to the JSF’s 4, has a bigger radar, has a better infra-red suit…it can detect the JSF at tactical ranges, jam and out manoeuvre its missiles, engage and disengage largely at will. For a more detailed explanation of tech and strategy see here: http://findinghomebookspace.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/defence-force-pornography-meets-real.html

This was the finding of Dr Stillion of the Rand Corporation, and of independent expert think tank Air Power Australia. Other critics have noted basic engineering and design flaws too numerous to mention here. For some considered commentary about alternatives see here: http://www.newaustralia.net/defence_airforce.html 

The Joint Strike Fighter has become so expensive and so useles it even has a research website dedicated to what a bad deal it really is. See here: http://f35baddeal.com/ If anyone in Europe buys the plane - good luck! It won't defend your country but it could cost you the very things you want to defend, like affordable education and health care.

If the US or NATO want to send a message to Putin they can only do so by imposing a ‘no fly zone’ over Ukraine. The fact that they haven’t indicates that they don’t want to risk an air war with Russia. After all, they wouldn’t want any of their very expensive and fragile kit to get damaged in a real contest now would they….there is a lesson in that for Australia. Let’s hope we learn fast.