Bayraktar TB2 drones in Ukraine show why Peter Dutton shouldn't buy expensive infantry fighting vehicles

The videos, familiar around the world over the past two weeks, show bombs from cheap Ukrainian drones ripping apart Russian army equipment.

"That was an infantry fighting vehicle!" the Defence Minister exclaims as an explosion fills the screen. "Will our new ones be like it?"

"No, minister," says the general, popping a lolly. "Our IFVs will be vastly more expensive than that one."

The war comes at a bad time for Australia's most outrageous defence program. With Bayraktar TB2 drones, Ukraine is giving Russia - and Australia, if it cares to pay attention - a demonstration of how warfare is being revolutionised by weapons that are small, cheap and numerous.

Meanwhile, our army, backed by Dutton, wants to go big and expensive - colossally expensive. Up to $27 billion is budgeted for 450 IFVs, an incredible $60 million each.

IFVs are armoured vehicles that carry soldiers into battle. This year the government is supposed to choose between two designs and commit to spending the money - just when experience from Ukraine shows it shouldn't.

These machines each weigh more than 40 tonnes and, when viewed from above, are about as big as a hotel room.

A view from above is in fact what a Bayraktar or similar drone would have of them. It's the view in the videos.

A Bayraktar, controlled by radio link by operators on the ground, shines a laser onto the top of the target and releases a small bomb that homes in on the illuminated spot. Kaboom.

Each Bayraktar, made in Turkey, costs US$1-2 million, according to the Guardian newspaper. Maybe the complete cost, including ground equipment, spare parts and so on, is $4 million. If so, you'd get 15 for the price of one IFV - and could afford to see 14 shot down before the 15th bags its prize.

Let's not forget that the prize, the IFV, would have nine people in it. Or it could be a tank, with a crew of four. Dutton said in January that he'd spend $3.5 billion on 75 Abrams tanks.

None of the answers to these little aircraft is really good enough - as Russia has found in Ukraine.

First, our army could hope for perfect coverage by air force fighters, so no drones could get through - but that condition is extremely unlikely. And consider that some countries could easily afford to send hundreds of Bayraktar-style drones into battle.

Next, the army can protect itself with missile systems that shoot down the drones, which might be flying higher than 5000 metres. Indeed, the government is equipping the army with what looks like an excellent air-defense system, called Nasams.

But if soldiers have to worry about plentiful drones swarming all over the place, then a lot of missile batteries will be needed, and each probably costs even more than our golden IFVs.

Also, air-defence batteries usually have to stop and set up to become operational then pack up before moving again, so they restrict the mobility of whatever they're protecting. That's inconvenient, since the whole point of such things as tanks and IFVs is providing mobile combat power.

A Bayraktar's radio link with the ground could be jammed, but such tactics are not reliable. In any case, future drones will probably hunt for targets without human assistance, and they may be smaller and cheaper, bought by the thousands.

A new class of weapon, called a loitering munition, is already cheaper. It's a kind of missile that wanders about looking for targets, rather than being launched with instructions on exactly where they are.

The outlook for big army vehicles has looked increasingly dire for decades, because of improved equipment that infantry can use against them. So now, rather like warships, they're sprouting defensive weapons that shoot down incoming projectiles - a complication that helps explain why our IFVs are supposed to cost so much.

MORE AGE OF THE DRAGON:

Maybe these systems can reliably knock out bombs hurtling down from 5000 metres. Relying on them to do so looks like a big bet, however.

Anyway, an enemy doesn't need to destroy fighting vehicles to neutralise them. As Ukraine has been showing, blowing up supply vehicles far from the front line, especially fuel trucks, is another way to cripple enemy combat strength.

Are Australia's tanks and IFVs supposed to be fed with fuel and ammunition by trucks that all have fancy protection systems and pass along chains of air-defence batteries?

Even if IFVs were unquestionably viable weapons, Australia shouldn't be buying any. Our first priority must be preparing for the horrible prospect of a war that China could start by attempting to conquer Taiwan.

It would be an air and maritime conflict, in which IFVs and tanks would be useless. So we have much more important things to buy.

An argument for going ahead with the IFVs is that the army needs them to replace similar but simpler vehicles called M113s that are simply worn out.

It's not good enough. Given our circumstances, letting this part of army capability lapse would be better than spending so much money on it.

Sad to say, the government and opposition have reasons for pushing ahead with this absurd program that have nothing to do with national security. As has become all too common, the equipment is supposed to be made in Australia - another explanation for the cost.

So we'll see press releases about jobs, which will really be press releases about votes. Don't be surprised if Dutton announces the go-ahead for this shocking waste of defence funding before the election.