The F111 is being retired in just over three years. The question of
an interim solution was raised during question time in the Senate
.
One of the questions without notice from December 4th was from opposition Senator Mark Bishop to Senator Ian Campbell:
Senator MARK BISHOP (2.50 p.m.)--My question is to Senator Campbell, representing the Minister for Defence in this place. While the government has reconfirmed its intent to purchase the Joint Strike Fighter, it is yet to explain how it will fill the capability gap between the retirement of the F111 from 2010 and the likely delivery of the JSFs in 2015 or beyond. Didn't the Minister for Defence admit this earlier this month when he stated that 'the government is looking at cost-effective options' to ensure that we maintained air superiority in the region through that gap? Given the retirement of the F111s is just three years away, when will the government announce the options and costs being considered and when will it actually make a decision on this critical issue? Why is the government so keen to commit $16 billion to purchase the JSF, yet so reluctant to explain how it will ensure Australia maintains its regional air superiority before it arrives? Senator IAN CAMPBELL--I thank Senator Bishop for a very important question about Australia's air defence. The government's view is that there should not be any lack of air defence capabilities between the commissioning and bringing into service of the JSF and the phasing out of the F111. In the brief reading of the notes provided on this issue, I note Deputy Chief of Air Force, Air Vice Marshal John Blackburn, told a media briefing on 10 October this year--as reported in the Canberra Times on 11 October--'We are confident that, with the program as it is currently progressing, we should not need an interim solution.' The upgrades to the FA18 together with these additional capabilities will deliver greater precision within the strike capability than available through a combined pre-upgrade of the FA18 and the F111 fleet. When the F111 is withdrawn from service, the strike role will transfer to the enhanced FA18 and then ultimately to the JSF. In terms of the costings that Senator Bishop asked about, they are important questions. I have some notes on costs here but I have not read them in thorough enough detail to report them to the Senate. I will be happy to provide further detail subsequently. Senator MARK BISHOP--I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I thank the minister for that partial response. Can the minister confirm that any interim options to maintain our air superiority will be additional costs over and above the $16 billion for the JSF itself? Is the government now expecting taxpayers to pay potentially hundreds of millions of dollars because it has failed to plan for the implementation of this new defence capability? What are the cost implications if the delays in the delivery of the JSF, as reported, significantly slip to 2017 or beyond? Senator IAN CAMPBELL--I cannot do any better than to quote Air Vice Marshal John Blackburn, who made it quite clear that he is confident--and this is the air vice marshal in charge of the project--and he said, `We are confident that, with the program as it is currently progressing, we should not need an interim solution.' In terms of the costings, I said at the end of my first answer that I am happy to provide Senator Bishop with further details.Strike capability is different to projection. The F18 has small legs in comparison to the F111. Consequently it relies on Australian Air to Air Refuelling [AAR] force multipliers for its projection capability. The AAR assets have not been updated yet and are still the old Boeing 707s which have been converted from civil duties. The air force is critical to Australian projection as the nature of any response means that the air force will be the first ones in to respond in both force and logistics. Unfortunately there has not been a defence white paper since 2000 so the defence procurement process is fraying and losing its strategic focus. Much of the procurement has been ad-hoc. The C-17 is a good example. A heavy lift transport is needed but four is not enough. The drop in projection with the retirement of the F111 is another example of poor defence planning from government. They desperately need to sit down and write out another white paper which can give Australian defence and procurement focus.
