The Age, Defence Force chiefs have attacked critics of plans to buy new strike fighters and battle tanks, claiming they are essential for an effective military.
Military chief Peter Cosgrove told a parliamentary inquiry yesterday that a proposed $10 billion investment in the United States' Joint Strike Fighter was a “good bet”, despite the air-craft still being on the drawing board.
Air force chief Angus Houston said the fighter was needed to replace ageing F-111s, as there was a high risk in flying the aircraft after 2010.
In an interview with The Age, army chief Peter Leahy said criticisms of new tanks were misguided. He said he hoped a new, $600 million tank fleet would never see action, but it was a necessary insurance policy.
The comments came as an Australian Strategic Policy Institute report assessed that Australia remained the most capable military power in the region, but that increased spending of up to $8 billion could increase its effectiveness internationally.
General Leahy said the new battle tanks were part of a need to “harden” the army, so it was able to conduct a range of high-intensity conflicts. The Government has supported the purchase, with three tanks – the US Abrams, British Challenger and German Leopard – undergoing evaluation.
Senior military figures are backing the Abrams, which General Leahy said was ahead of its rivals in the area of interoperability with US forces. Sources said the Abrams purchase would be recommended to the Government early next year.
Claims that the Abrams were too heavy to be transported or travel across bridges in the Pacific were wrong, General Leahy said. “We wouldn't buy the bloody things if we weren't sure of that,” he said.
Critics were ill-informed, and the tanks were needed to protect infantry sources against high-powered weapons now available to terrorists and insurgent groups, he said.
“I hope we never have to use them,” General Leahy said. “It's a bit like an insurance policy.”
General Cosgrove also said those who claimed some of the tanks were too big to be transported by existing systems had not done their homework.
“We can move them on rail cars,” he said. “We can move them around the north where they presumably would be based. We can move them on and off our ships.”
General Cosgrove said that although the Joint Strike Fighter was still in development, “in terms of the bet we are making, it is a pretty sure bet”. The Government last year decided to invest more than $200 million in the fighter development program, effectively committing it to buy about 100 aircraft to replace the F/A-18 Hornets and F-111s.
“Naturally we have all thought about what happens if there is any kind of a problem either in the prolongation of our combat aircraft or delays in the delivery of an alternative new combat aircraft – what are the bridging strategies we might have to adopt,” General Cosgrove told the parliamentary Defence Committee.
He said that would include full upgrading of F/A-18 weapons and sensors and introducing new air-to-air refuelling and early warning aircraft.
“If any of those programs for any reason… is slowed down or doesn't work, we still have options with the F-111,” he said.
But Air Marshal Houston said there was a high risk the F-111s could not be sustained beyond 2010. They had suffered wing breakage, fuel tank implosion and fuel leaks in the past 18 months, he said.
