Opinion: Let’s fight the next war, not the last

If we look at the war in Ukraine, Russians have relied heavily on Iranian Shahed drones to do extraordinary damage through both isolated attacks and swarms. They cost about US$20,000 each, making them disposable by military standards, but can still carry 40 kilograms of payload — typically explosives.

Prior, Azerbaijan’s Turkish TB2 drones defined its war with Armenia, with the latter unable to defend against them.

Beyond the overseas battlefield, our home soil is also under increasing threat. We need to harden our domestic ADF bases, especially as we reportedly look to host nuclear-capable US Air Force B-52 bombers as a key deterrent against China, not to mention our own F-35 assets across our airfields.

The enemy threat won’t just come from complex hypersonic weapons, either. Something as simple as a drone — such as a DJI Mavic or Phantom that can be purchased at most retailers — can be strapped with equipment to steal government and military assets and various other capabilities adversaries have.

We might have crucial allies to aid us should we need it. Though when we consider we aren’t part of NATO, nor do we have first strike, it’s apparent there must be more focus on our own priorities.

Every defence or military trade show comes with a showcase of Ghost Robotics dogs — and they provide perfect photo opportunities. But while the ADF invests in various forms of robotics (most famously, the Ghost Bat, previously known as Loyal Wingman) and unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), what’s missing is a substantial investment in changes spanning cyber security, protection of “soft” targets, and advanced technology and electronic warfare, like counter-drones. Robotics and counter-robotics are two sides of the same coin, much like missiles and missile defence systems.

We need real government contracts to foster sovereign capabilities and become a defence tech world leader and simultaneously get away from relying on imports. We are the twelfth-largest defence spender globally, yet a top five importer — that investment could be better spent on the homegrown industry.

In the US, In-Q-Tel acts as the venture capital arm of the CIA for companies with which it does business. Australia has the opportunity to structure funding options for defence companies based on performance with the ADF.

This would help to resolve the current situation whereby funding and procurement channels are missing despite a common understanding within the ADF that this is needed.

A large number of ADF groups and personnel at various levels with whom we are engaged have expressed concerns over drone security. They have highlighted instances of trying to cut through red tape to get the equipment needed with very limited success. They are left struggling to deal with drones moving through domestic military air space, and worse yet, it’s difficult to know with a level of certainty that all flying devices are even being spotted.

The consensus among this personnel is that a separate program to fund advanced capabilities is essential for Australian defence. As it stands, it is unclear who is in charge of establishing this type of comprehensive counter-drone capability or who holds responsibility for its funding.

One reason for this is that counter-drone is applicable across a vast range of areas. It can apply to programs like LAND 400 (armoured vehicles), Abrams tanks, LAND 125 (soldier systems), LAND 8710 (littoral vessels) and even AIR 6500 (Joint Air Battle Management System). All of these need a level of counter-drone, but because funding is limited, any investment has to come at the expense of something else and is therefore forgotten.

Defence is starting to focus on fostering local defence capabilities outside of defence primes (which continue to be critical for larger programs). Small, agile local defence SMEs are able to deliver innovative solutions to defence but need regular work to grow their workforce and investment in research and development (R&D).

High-tech areas where defence stands to benefit if we are to see increased government contracts include Ocius and its persistent maritime surveillance Bluebottle robotic ships, Silentium and Darenmont with passive radars and Mellori with electronic warfare, among others. We then have a related (but separate) space industry with defence applications, which is also quickly becoming a core defence capability where we want a thriving local ecosystem.

How do we ensure defence SMEs get access to such regular work? Greater transparency is key. Approved SMEs need to have access to Defence capability managers across all areas, along with their main interests and ability to “pitch” their capabilities to them.

In turn, the capability managers need more empowerment and budgets to spend as they see appropriate — decentralising the spending system — as opposed to focusing budgets on single, clunky choking points like Innovation Hub. Defence can even choose to fund the development or share the development risk by committing to purchase the end product (subject to meeting agreed specs), assuming the SME is able to develop it.

Australian defence will never outspend adversaries like China. Smarter, smaller programs with a disproportionate and asymmetric impact must therefore become a priority for the Albanese government and Defence Minister Richard Marles, right alongside sovereign, high-tech R&D in electronic warfare and advanced capabilities.

DroneShield is a NSW-based, counter-UAS company.