Collaboration with the US on Missile Defence

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Wednesday, 22 October 2008 DEFENCE PORTFOLIO Senator LUDLAM-In the hearings of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics held on 29 July, I asked representatives from Defence about how Australia is collaborating with the United States on their missile defence system, specifically whether we are collaborating on space based laser and space based infrared systems, which are part of missile defence. I was told that we are engaging in collaboration with the US in some fashion. The witness said: ...

we have engagement with the US through some of our capability development and policy discussion on their missile defence capability development ... Can you provide us with, firstly, an overview of Australia's financial commitment to this collaboration and, secondly, an outline of how we are cooperating with the US in that project? Mr Jennings-In the missile defence area, our collaboration with the United States is fairly limited. At this stage, we have not committed any expenditure on the procurement of ballistic missile defence systems, and we have a fairly limited policy of engagement with the United States, which is really designed to ensure that we understand their policy settings and understand the extent of scientific research and development going on in that field.

In the last 12 months, our expenditures have been limited to around $850,000, most of which is to support travel to be observers at exercises and to attend conferences. Senator LUDLAM-$850,000 on travel? Can you give us an idea of how many personnel are involved in those sorts of visits? Mr Jennings-There are really two parts to this. One is the policy side of the house, where something in the order of $275,000 has been spent in attending conferences and being observers at ballistic missile defence exercises.

In the defence science and technology area, there has been an expenditure of approximately $575,000 over the same time period, which is really designed to ensure an understanding of the American science and research effort. Senator LUDLAM-Okay, so that is $850,000 for travel and conference fees and associated costs, and a further $575,000, or is that- Mr Jennings-No, I am giving you a breakdown of the $850,000. So $275,000 is for conferences and observing exercises, and about $575,000 is in the science and technology area.

Senator LUDLAM-So Australia is not actually providing research support, technology development or any of that sort of thing to the US effort? Mr Jennings-Only in a very limited way. Senator LUDLAM-What sort of way is ‘limited'? Mr Jennings-At this point, I will hand over to Admiral Tripovich. He can talk to the more technical side.

Vice Adm. Tripovich-In answer to your question, we have a lot of what I would call trade goods. We in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation are very good in modelling and simulation work, for example, and we contribute our expertise alongside the Americans and a number of other countries that are in the family of countries that are examining science and technology in things about detecting and tracking missiles, missile performance and evaluation of capabilities in missiles.

We contribute that. A lot of the work we contribute is work we do for ourselves anyway, for Australia, and we take that to the table. It is largely, if I wanted to characterise it, in modelling and simulation, in technologies for detecting and tracking missiles-in those sorts of areas.

Senator LUDLAM-Thanks for providing that. Is any of that work being performed on the request of the United States Department of Defense or the United States government, or are we just doing our own research and then providing it? Vice Adm. Tripovich-We are in a collaborative arrangement with the US and a number of other countries.

There is a very large gathering of countries which are involved in the missile defence research and technology because of mutual interest in this area. There is an agreed work plan, if you like. There are tasks that need to be done, and those countries then contribute what they are able to.

Between us, we contribute what we are able to and collectively we have it covered, if you see what I mean. Senator LUDLAM-So it is fair to say then that there would have been, on occasion, probably requests from the United States government to pursue certain lines of inquiry or research in Australia? Vice Adm. Tripovich-As I said, there is a whole raft of things that collectively all the nations need to do.

Senator LUDLAM-I am more concerned about Australia's contribution specifically. Vice Adm. Tripovich-I do not know of any specific tasks that have been given to us where we would not normally have had some interest in doing that work anyway, if you see what I mean.

Senator LUDLAM-Australia is pursuing independent lines of inquiry as to being able to destroy missiles in orbit, or- Vice Adm. Tripovich-No. For example, we do a lot of normal research into missile characteristics: how do missiles behave; how do you detect and track them? That is normal Defence Science and Technology Organisation business-to support Defence, for example.

We are able to contribute that sort of information to the greater pool of knowledge being formed by the collaboration of the various countries. Senator LUDLAM-I do not know whether it would qualify as a separate appropriation, but the $575,000 has actually been set aside specifically for missile defence work, so this is not some sort of pooled or aggregate effort into missile behaviour generally? Vice Adm. Tripovich-No, that would be the value of our contributions.

Senator LUDLAM-In total. I understand, thank you. I am just wondering-and this is perhaps more a policy question than a technical question-given the United States policy of pre-emptive nuclear strike, how we could qualify the US missile defence system as defensive, when essentially it is informing a first strike nuclear capability of the United States.

I suspect that is probably more a policy question than a technical one. Mr Jennings-Senator, I do not think I would characterise the American policy as being one of supporting pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Senator LUDLAM-There have been statements from the United States President that they would use nuclear weapons on a first-strike basis if the conditions were right, on a number of occasions.

Mr Jennings-I do not think that translates into a policy of pre-emptive strikes, but I am not really here to be accountable for American nuclear policy. Senator LUDLAM-I understand-except to the degree that we appear to be supporting a fairly key part of United States nuclear-war-fighting policy, if you will, and that there is an Australian contribution, so it is in our interests to understand on what footing that policy is. Mr Jennings-My sense is that they could manage without us.

I think that our contribution is of a very limited nature. It is really designed to ensure that we have an understanding of progress within the American system, which is after all a multibillion-dollar effort. It is one which makes it possible for us to understand the nature of the technology and the trends in that technology development, but, in essence, we are doing little more than maintaining a watching brief in this area through a very limited provision of resources.

Vice Adm. Tripovich-Senator, if I could give you some reassurance: the work that I have referred to is about missile defence, and it is related to being able to detect a launch, track a missile and take appropriate defensive action. Senator LUDLAM-Thanks for that clarification.

The language gets a little bit muddied, because, strategically, one of the purposes of a missile defence shield is that you can launch a first nuclear strike and be less concerned about a retaliatory strike. That is the strategic direction on which national missile defence is being pursued in the United States, so I would suggest that the use of the word ‘defensive' is actually potentially quite misleading in that sense. That was why I was pursuing that line before.

Vice Adm. Tripovich-I can only speak to the work that we are doing. It is contributing to the ability to detect a launch, track the missile and defend ourselves, and that is consistent, I think you will find, with the government's policy about defending troops in theatre, for example.

We are trying to do that work. That is the important bit about it. Mr Jennings-It is also worth saying that the focus of America's effort is against what they refer to as ‘strikes from rogue states'-that is to say, states which do not accept the deterrence paradigm.

In this part of the world, principally North Korea is a focus. I think that that is a serious strategic concern which the United States has, and certainly one around which we need to remain informed as well. Senator LUDLAM-I put to you that a strike from a rogue state would be more likely to occur in the back of a truck than a ballistic missile, but that is probably a conversation for another day.

I have one final question. Are we in conversations with the United States about technology transfer and potential deployment of such technology on naval vessels, for example? Mr Jennings-Australian naval vessels? Senator LUDLAM-Yes. Mr Jennings-No, at this stage there is no Australian government focus on procurement of those sorts of systems.

Senator LUDLAM-Are there any related testing activities at the Woomera Test Facility? Mr Jennings-None that I am aware of. Air Chief Marshal Houston-No, not at all. Senator LUDLAM-I will leave it there..

Tue Oct 2008 02:10 (2 months, 1 week ago)