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

Air combat is the most fundamental and vital capability of a defence force. Without air superiority, Australia's land and sea forces would be exposed to enemy air attack if we were to go to war. The RAAF would be unable to effectively project lethal force against enemy targets. We are planning to buy the Joint Strike Fighter—or F-35—to provide that capability, which capability will need to be effective through to around 2060. General Michael Hostage, Chief of the United States Air Force Air Combat Command recently stated:

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 mission of Air Combat Command is to be the primary force provider of non-nuclear combat capability to America's war-fighting commands. The loss of air superiority leaves our fighting men and women highly vulnerable as we will not have the F-22.

LockMart defines the JSF as fifth generation, but it does not comply with what the market sees as fifth generation. LockMart is quite happy to come to Australia and mislead—if not deceive—both the parliament and the population on multiple issues. They are desperate to generate sales and lock customers in even though their project is in trouble.

I started criticising the JSF in late 2005. Defence and LockMart then said that the JSF would be in operational service in Australia in 2012 at a cost of around $65 million per annum. The reality now—optimistically—is 2020 and $135 million per annum. The Russians and Chinese have F-22 competitors flying now, so any stealth advantage the JSF may have had is now negated. Post 2015, it will be a stealth-on-stealth/counter-stealth world. When the JSF enters service, it will already be well surpassed and overmatched, like buying Sopwith Camels to fight the Battle of Britain or an old Toyota Camry to race in Formula 1—wrong purpose, wrong era.

Defence has been way too gullible, simply accepting LockMart's assertions and assurances without properly conducting due diligence. I am unaware of any 'red team' within Defence for the express purpose of looking for flaws and problems within the JSF designs and JSF program. Critics, who have been shown to be correct on cost, schedule, aeropropulsive performance and system capabilities, have been derided and ignored as not having access to classified data. At what price is that data classified when Defence officials have been proven wrong time and again?

Technically, the United States Director, Operational Testing and Evaluation—or DOT&E—determines not only whether the aircraft meets the specification it is intended to meet—and the F-35 does not in many areas—but also whether the specification is adequate for the aircraft to fulfil its operational purpose. The recent DOT&E reports are very troubling and make clear that the aircraft is unlikely to be fit for purpose. At the very least, we should defer any decision or contracts to purchase the JSF until such a time that the United States DOT&E testing proves the JSF fit for purpose.

With an initial operational capability of 2020, we have the luxury of being able to wait until this determination has been made before committing to any purchase. In this environment, making any other decision would be rash, ill-thought-through and, frankly, irresponsible and reckless. The unqualified commitment to the JSF program by previous governments is nothing more than writing a blank cheque. How is it responsible or defensible that we ask others to tighten up—refusing corporate welfare for the car industry—while at the same time we provide corporate welfare to LockMart?

This protection or denial of the truth about the F-35's performance is borne out of a fear to own up to a mistake. As a parliament, we are all too ready to say sorry for nearly everything, except for wasting taxpayers' money or endangering lives. As the Commission of Audit hands down its preliminary report, we should ask to see a cost benefit analyses. Let me bring this debate to a conclusion with an Irish saying: 'If you buy what you don't need, you might have to sell what you do need.'