Quite understandably, the Government copped a fair bit of flak when it made the sudden decision to buy 24 new F-18E jet fighters. We were buying an older aircraft for which there was, apparently, no strategic justification.
We are already committed to the Joint Strike Fighter program. We participate in the work from this huge international project and will get a discount on the plane (when we eventually buy it).
When the JSF is up and flying, it will replace both our F-18A fighters, which are showing signs of wear and fatigue, and the F-111 bombers, which are nearly obsolete. So, when it was announced we'd get a couple of squadrons' worth of fighters, it looked very much as if John Howard had taken a bit too much Viagra that morning.
There was plenty of money in the kitty, so no one made a fuss at the time. The air force treated it a bit like an early Christmas present, and the rest of us just wondered what the Government was up to. Now, however, some of the strategic reasoning behind the move is beginning to fall into place.
There were a few rumours about difficulties with the JSF project and hints of possible delays, but there was no firm evidence. In fact, the official line is still that there's no problem at all.
But it appears the reality is somewhat different. Because an assembly line is not yet in place to build the aircraft, we have no idea of exactly how significant the problems might be. Everything is still sketchy, but the point is that it is increasingly looking as if there will either be delays or the later aircraft that are produced will be considerably superior to the early models. That's the word from the political side, at any rate.
We will be getting a version of the F-18 that is so unlike the original model that it's virtually a different aircraft, but for political reasons it's been designated with the same number although a different letter as our current models. Even though we (supposedly) got them at a discount, they will still be the most expensive planes we have ever bought. So why get them?
The decision only makes sense if there are serious difficulties wrapped around the JSF. Combine this with our urgent desperate need for replacement aircraft from about the year 2012. If we hadn't bought new F-18s, all of our eggs would have been in the JSF basket. Any hitch could have left us defenceless.
The Government decided this was far too great a risk. It's increasingly looking as though Defence Minister Brendan Nelson did the right thing in pushing the purchase of these 24aircraft.
In acquiring these planes we have bought time but, more importantly, leverage. We are not committed to taking the first JSFs that roll of the production line. We can wait until the aircraft is as good as it can be, instead of being forced to purchase whatever happens to be available at the time. There's still no doubt that, eventually, the JSF will be the best strike fighter in the world. Now we have flexibility to wait until it's completely ready.
The second advantage is to do with the cost. Although the JSF will still only be about half the cost of the F-22 Raptor, the cost appears to be growing. That cost might grow further, particularly if a country such as Britain decided not go ahead and equip the RAF with the aircraft, or another country (such as the US) decided to significantly scale down the number of planes it was obtaining. In other words, there were more question marks hanging over this program then there are over the interim purchase of 24 of these hugely upgraded F-18s.
As they say in tennis, "advantage Nelson". The problem is that we won't really know whether or not the decision was a brilliant one until 2012. If I'm still writing for the Times then and the JSF program is running on track, then I reserve the right to flay Nelson for this "completely unnecessary purchase".
If, on the other hand, the JSF project is either delayed or becoming prohibitively costly, well then, I might even mutter a very quiet congratulations, although I certainly wouldn't want to get carried away.
However, the Coalition rapidly loses any points it has gained over the planes with the announcement last week obviously made in the heat and excitement of the election campaign, perhaps it's Viagra again that we are going to have two "military trade" high schools.
This is just election-campaigning rubbish. It's an idea that hasn't been thought through. Witness, for example, the fact that John Howard couldn't even identify locations for the institutions, except to say that one would be in South Australia and the other in Queensland.
The reality is that the services are finding it very difficult to attract recruits to the navy generally and for specific trades in the army. The way around this is not by grabbing youths while they are immature and naive in the hope that they will turn magically into brilliant new recruits.
If it cannot get people to enlist, Defence will have to change so these careers become more attractive. There are many better ways of doing this than allowing camouflage-netting to be used as a picturesque backdrop for a desperate Prime Minister who is flailing around and attempting to appeal electorally to the older demographic. Because that is all this entire announcement was about.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that this idea has been anything other than a political gimmick. As such, it works well. Some people do think, "a bit of discipline is exactly what young kids need today", and they are the demographic that the Liberals desperately need.
I'm sorry to disillusion anyone who really thought this ploy was about helping Defence, but it's actually about helping the Liberal Party. It's simply a "feel-good" measure and will do nothing to help the crisis of recruiting new tradespeople into the services.
Nicholas Stuart is a Canberra writer. nicstuart@hotmail.com