Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

President Eisenhower, in his final speech as President to the people of the United States, warned of the potential danger of burgeoning and unfettered power of what he termed the military-industrial complex. He stated:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Unfortunately, we see this unwarranted and dangerous influence of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about in evidence today. There are forces at work that let convenience, pride and unwise loyalty override the safety of our nation and its allies. Take the joint strike fighter, JSF or F-35. On Tuesday 3 June in Senate estimates the Chief of Air Force was asked about a statement by United States Air Force head of Air Combat Command, General Michael Hostage, that:

If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.

The Chief of Air Force states that he did not know the context, so would take the question on notice. On Friday 6 June, in response to a question that would appear to have been a Dorothy Dixer, the Chief of Air Force had a statement appearing to put the quote in context. The clarification did not change the sentiment originally expressed. Indeed, it could not, because the only options you have with the original statement were that General Hostage was deliberately not telling the truth, was incompetent or was indeed telling the truth. I believe he was telling the truth.

What is concerning is the obvious pressure that has been brought to bear to ensure that Lockheed Martin, the Joint Strike Fighter manufacturer, was not negatively impacted, in terms of potential sales to Australia. This pressure is abundantly clear from the tone of Hostage's clarification but still makes clear that the JSF is not adequate against a near-peer threat on their own turf with a dense and highly capable integrated air-defence system.

This is exactly what Eisenhower warned about, and we now have senior officers in Australia and the US effectively acting as salesmen for huge multinational defence conglomerates. This is not in the best interests of either nation's citizens. Problematically for Lockheed Martin and Defence, General Hostage has further belled the cat on JSF capability or lack thereof. He stated recently:

The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I'm going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I'm going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it's there in numbers,

He goes further:

Because it can't turn and run away, it's got to have support from other F-35s. So I'm going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after.

So a four-to-one ratio of JSFs to F22 Raptors is needed in the air-superiority role. This clearly demonstrates that the JSF is not an air-superiority fighter.

I was trying to remember where I had heard something similar to General Hostage's statement 'because it can't turn and run away', and it came to me. I recall the RAND study Air Combat, Past, Present and Future that I made public a number of years ago. It had a slide that Lockheed Martin took particular exception to. In that slide, the statement was made that the JSF was 'double inferior' to threat fighters and that it 'can't turn, can't climb, can't run'. That slide and the exception that Lockheed Martin took to it resulted in RAND firing Dr John Stillion, a very capable analyst and previous combat aviator who co-wrote that report.

I understand Lockheed Martin was dismayed with that statement in the RAND document. They certainly pulled out all the stops to negate that statement. Lockheed Martin have also misled on aero-propulsive performance of the JSF, saying it is similar to a combat loaded F16. This is blatantly untrue. When I pushed this point with the Chief of the Air Force—in our committee inquiry into the Defence annual report—he did not persist in equating the aero-propulsive performance of the F16 with a JSF. He clearly now does not dispute what I said in terms of the JSFs aero-propulsive performance not even matching a Vietnam-era combat loaded F4 Phantom in sustaining internal acceleration, never mind an F16.

Yes, I do have the flight manuals of the F4 Phantom and the F16, where the charts prove this point. I challenge anyone to prove me incorrect on this. The simple fact is, on pretty much everything with JSF that is not classified, underlined experts have proved to be correct—where Lockheed Martin and Defence's statements have been proven incorrect.

Take costs, were Defence and Lockheed Martin were assuring us that each JSF would cost considerably less than $100 million each. In fact, the price is well over $180 million each, pretty much line ball with what independent experts at Air Power Australia said. Take schedule. Air Power Australia said it would be years late, while Defence and Lockheed Martin assured the parliament it would achieve initial operational capability in 2013. I do not see any combat-ready JSFs anywhere on the planet, never mind in squadron service in Australia.

With aero-propulsive performance, Air Power Australia was absolutely on the money, where Lockheed Martin and Defence were assuring parliament it would at least meet its turn-and-acceleration performance. Lockheed Martin was incorrect despite having access to all the wind-tunnel data and other critical data, yet both Lockheed Martin and Defence have the audacity to denigrate those outside experts who have been correct on the publicly verifiable data points. They criticise these outside experts, calling them commentators et cetera, when Defence and Lockheed Martin have been proven wrong at every non-classified turn, yet they say, 'Trust us. It is the secret data that is critical.' How can we trust when on any objective outside test they have failed? How are outside experts without access to detailed data that Lockheed Martin and Defence have able to get it right? Where was the due diligence by Defence? They should have been sceptical, testing the evidence and being objective, yet they simply repeated the line put out by Lockheed Martin. Hence my concern going back half a century to President Eisenhower.

The simple fact is that Lockheed Martin and the military-industrial complex may be selling the US, Australia and its allies a pup, but nations that may not be friendly to us are not buying the pitch. Defence and Lockheed Martin argue that so many customers buying the JSF cannot be wrong. There are numerous times that incorrect decisions have been made in the past, such as when three US services purchased the F-4 Phantom without a gun as dogfights were deemed obsolete and it was all going to be to air-to-air missiles. It sounds very similar to the arguments supporting the JSF, but Vietnam proved the fallacy of that argument. In fact, the end of dogfighting has been suggested for more than half the history of air combat. The reality when fighting peer threats has always come back to bite.

The other fact is that most JSF purchasers have other aircraft they will use for the air superiority role. Potential threat nations are objectively testing the evidence and have come to a very different conclusion about the fundamentals to us. Noted senior Senate Armed Services Committee member and presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, believes the JSF is a 'great national scandal' and 'worse than a disgrace'. He is qualified to comment, having flown F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam. Given our budget emergency, I echo the venerable senator's words. It is time to end the madness and it is time to scrap the JSF.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B and the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.