Hello Paul L,

We are perhaps debating differing concepts for employment of Wedgetail and Global Hawk.

On 3 June, you contended that advances in technology and cryptography will assure security of communication. Manufacturers of unmanned aerial vehicles will doubtless have endeavoured to counter possibility of data link disruption for UAV flight control and sensor output transfer although counter-measures technology will inevitably emerge. Global Hawk and Predator are presently being successfully operated in Iraq and Afghanistan via trans-global data link mediums although in a somewhat benign air defence environment due to coalition air dominance.

Australia’s littoral surveillance will largely be conducted in a benign air defence environment unless somebody chooses to interfere with sea lanes, air corridors and resources assets to exert political pressure. In such circumstances, ‘AWACS Killer’ missiles would be a threat consideration for any type of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) vehicle operated beyond our territorial limits. Why then conduct costly Wedgetail operations for this need when Global Hawk can do a far more cost-effective job without risk of aircrew loss? AWACS aircraft in service around the world do perform very useful functions but it is really horses for courses.

Some envisage that we can conduct operations in similar fashion to the US but our military resources are comparatively piddling. The RAAF will have but 5 MRTT and 6 Wedgetail with maybe 3 tanker/transports and 3 Wedgetail on-line continuously, both aircraft requiring adequate crewing for sustained operations. The Service Chiefs inevitably lobby to reshape their forces in various ways but military capabilities and manpower requirements are managed principally by senior public servants in Departments of Defence, Defence Science & Manpower. Ambitious new equipment planning seemingly fails to address adequate manning of new capabilities. Reservists are already used extensively to prop up Air Force aircrew manpower and there would be lead time involved in aircraft type conversion and operational training for any others who might be willing.

The reality is Wedgetail will not be able to provide a sustained cost-effective ISR capability within Australia’s area of military interest achievable with Global Hawk.

Bushranger71,

I would have thought that the MESA radar in the wedgetails would not be able to be fitted to the global hawk, and that therefore the hawk would be highly limited in the Air defence/Airborne control role. Thus far the Hawk has only really been used as a surveillance and targeting platform (as far as I know), and in that sense would seem to be a competitor with the new P-8A Poseidons.I would imagine that the 6+ mission controllers on board also make a significant difference. Even if you could fit the MESA radar to the global Hawk I wonder whether it is really possible to do that work remotely as effectively as they can onboard a Wedgetail?

We are buying Hawks or predator MQ9 anyway, aren't we?

Hello again Paul L,

Hitherto, no Global Hawk, Predator or whatever other UAVs being contemplated have been ordered to my knowledge although the Defence Material Organization recently announced 2 unscheduled decisions to purchase or lease some different training helicopters for both Navy and Army without any prior public airing of those intentions.

As I have emphasized, military manning is seriously deficient (especially aircrew) and I do not see meaningful improvement in that area for multiple reasons. Front line units have to be continuously manned to operational levels if we wish to present military credibility, even if that means curtailing some functions.

Nobody is being held accountable for deficient defence capabilities planning and costly contractual shortcomings in projects like the Collins submarine, Seasprite, Tiger, Wedgetail (which might never meet design specifications). Throwing huge amounts of funds at arms suppliers for dubious merit capabilities is contemptuous of taxpayers and public discussion regarding Defence White Paper 2008 formulation over coming months might hopefully bring a lot of this stuff to the fore.

Much of the rash spending on defence by the Howard Government and since ordained by Rudd & Co. will not be affordable in the foreseeable economic slowdown that looms for Australia. Operating costs for defence have been virtually ignored for years but have now soared exponentially so there will have to be strong emphasis on cost-effective conduct of military related activities. This of course means conducting military operations more efficiently and applying stringent cost-benefit analysis to all defence planning which could have avoided inappropriate procurement decisions. Global Hawk could be operated infinitely more efficiently than Wedgetail.

I have enjoyed the discourse but we are perhaps boring readers with our ongoing discussion so this my last response.

Bushranger 71, Paul L. and Gibo

Judging from our discussion there is much in Australia's defence debate to be thrashed out in OLO in the future. Many more articles.

Returning to the F-35/F-22 issue there seems to be some complacency that the Super Hornet is the only F/A Australia needs buy but that the F-35 (whatever its deficiencies) is some sought of alliance constant. Not so. This only the reality. That Lockheed its US government supporters and the (senior) RAAF have tried to create.

The F-22 needs to be part of the debate because it will emerge that the F-22 will only be about 15% more expensive than the F-35. The F-22 has been overpriced as part of Lockheed corporate strategy while the F-35 has been systematically under-priced for years for marketing.

Basically the difference is the cost of two engines instead of one. In that direction customers will steadily require more capability for the F-35 (approaching already known F-22 levels). This dynamic will push F-35 prices up.

As a purchasing plan for the next 6 years my views are:

- The F-22 is ideally suited to Australia's needs because it is being developed into a high end fighter bomber (F/A) with longer range, greater speed and higher payload than the F-35 on account of the F/A-22s two engines. Stealth and its whole electronic suite makes the F/A-22 far superior to the Super Hornet.

more to follow

- The current problem is the "US won't let us have them". This will probably change.

Much backing of the F-35 and blocking of the F-22 rests on the current incumbents in the Pentagon and White House. After January 2009 the goalposts may begin to shift.

As Australia has purchased 24 Super Hornets Australia we have breathing space.

- The Super Hornet is the current fighter-bomber to buy, agree with the current purchase of 24 (entering service 2010/11) and think another wing of 24 should be ordered in 2010 to come in 2012/13. These will largely take over from the older Hornets being phased out.

- Late model F/A-22 fighter bombers will basically be a new generation.

I'd hope for a purchase of 24 F/A-22s in 2014 to come in 2017.

F/A-22s will serve as first day of war, strike fighters and in the air superiority role - basically downing the increasingly numerous Flankers in our region as well as destroying more able SAM defences.

The F/A-22 would blaze the way and act as top cover, allowing the Super Hornets to get through and hit targets.

In pure air defence terms they would compliment each other.

Naturally corporate and other bought interests might disagree.

To the National Security Committee of Cabinet who are accountable, the basic message is:

Don't buy according to pressure from the only country selling.

Buy after long and careful consideration in Australia's interests.

Its tax payers AND voters money.

Don't buy the F-35 merely because the Coalition got pushed into it, making it the easy, throw-away choice.

Pete

Hello Paul L,

Apologies if my response on 7 June seemed terse (not intended) and I failed to directly address your query re Global Hawk capabilities.

Military technology advances rapidly these days and getting locked into long gestation projects risks capabilities soon becoming bettered. Global Hawk hardware such as radars will undoubtedly be upgraded to optimize use of the vehicle and this very capable UAV has markedly superior performance to Wedgetail, enabling continuous surveillance for around 24 hours with a 220 nautical mile diameter moving ground footprint for sensors when operating at 65,000 feet (see www.emporia.edu/.../student/graves1/GHWK2.jpg).

Command and control can be exercised from anywhere via Global Hawk resources and whatever emerges downstream re AP-3C Orion or P-8A Poseidon will be complementary manned networking capabilities, also the air warfare destroyers.

My judgement is that our future defence emphasis should be upgraded surveillance and a credible (air defence and maritime strike) deterrent capability to discourage interference with sea lanes, air corridors and resources installations. But Australia cannot afford to indulge in a proliferation of inadequately manned minimal capabilities so there just has to be some rationalization to assure more credible military capacity - see my following response to Plantaganet and Peter Coates.