Clearly, the cost-cutting in the Defence Department has already begun. While the 2000 Defence White Paper had an ample supply of stock photos, the 2009 White Paper‘s only image is the three submarines on the front cover. Not a diagram, map, or photo to break up the extremely plain single-column layout. More seriously, given the repeated delays in releasing the is document, you do wonder just how recently the content of the White Paper was finalized. Long and furious internal debates within Defence and, perhaps, Cabinet?
In any case, it seems that the hawks have won, and particularly the naval hawks. Australia is to build a new generation of submarines when the Collins-class is retired, to have 12 members instead of 6. The surface navy has done well too, with the air warfare destroyers to go ahead, and the option for a fourth still under consideration, the Anzac -class frigates to be replaced, as well as additional ships for sealift capability. The mess surrounding naval helicopters will get cleaned up with a purchase of a pile of brand new ones.
The question that arose with the retirement of the F-111 – would Australia retain an equivalent ability to blow things up far beyond its borders – has been resolved with the decision to equip both the surface navy and the submarines, when they are built, with cruise missiles. While the specific type isn’t mentioned, it’ll likely be whatever iteration of the Tomahawk missile the USA is willing to sell us. While this probably won’t get nearly as much attention in the popular media, it’s probably a far bigger deal to our neighbours in terms of our offensive capabilities.
Plans for the air force don’t seem to have changed much, with the squadron of Super Hornets to be joined by a bunch of Joint Strike Fighters to replace the “classic” 1980s Hornets; ultimately, the Super Hornets are planned to be replaced with another squadron of JSF’s, keeping the total complement of fighters at 100. Upgrades to air-to-air weaponry will proceed as normal. The Orion maritime surveillance aircraft will be replaced, and augmented with an unmanned high-altitude surveillance plane – maybe we will buy the Global Hawk after all. Finally, the ancient Caribou tactical airlifter will be replaced as well.
The army is to remain the size it currently is. Aside from an upgrade in helicopter capability, perhaps the most significant upgrade is to the Army’s vehicles. Thank you, Iraq and Afghanistan; now pretty much every vehicle the army operates will have to be an armoured vehicle.
There’s also a lot of blather in the white paper about cyberwarfare. Colour me skeptical; by far the most vulnerable systems are going to be civilian ones, and buggerizing around with civilian infrastructure tends to violate the Geneva conventions if you’re a nation state and care about such things. By contrast, the decision to buy our own spy satellite (a radar-based one, not an optical one) gets a mere paragraph – kind of short shrift for something that strikes me as a pretty big deal.
As has been widely reported, none of this will come cheap, with the Rudd government guaranteeing Defence 3% real funding increases for the next decade.
The justification for all this, you ask? Well, in a nutshell, it comes down to “Trust us”. There is chapter upon chapter on the international situation which Australia finds itself in, most of which could have been written by a half-decent honours student in international relations with access to Google. Then there’s the force structure. How do these two things relate together? That’s not to be revealed in a public document, even the vaguest terms. As such, it’s impossible to have a sensible debate about whether their force structure is appropriate given their assumptions.
I still don’t reckon that’s good enough, given the gargantuan spend being proposed.
Elsewhere: Bomber Beazley likes it. Ben Eltham argues that the strategy ignores the real national security threats facing us – climate change and peak oil.
They’ve conceded my point from the previous thread (quote from 4.65 in the white paper):
When Defence becomes part of the warmenist conspiracy, you know the denialists are hard up.
I think they’re gambling by asserting the strategic primacy of the US out to 2030, incidentally. It’s most probable—but it’s not certain by any means.
Peter Martin seems to think the funding is over the top compared to the cuts imposed on other departments.
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2009/05/our-defence-department-is-hopeless-with.html
Thanks for that update, Robert. You’re very thorough….and entertaining. I was talking with an Air Force person on the weekend. He was non-plussed about the plan.
I agree with Martin. This spending spree is uncalled for, and looking ahead it runs a risk of setting off a regional arms race which we may lose.
.
Governments never seem to learn that spending too much on “defence” (usually, as in this case, it’s actually “offense”) is at least as dangerous to national security as spending too little. For instance, it’s a Good Thing to be able to say to Great And Powerful Friends who propose a far-flung expeditione in support of their empire “sorry, love to help but …”. And its a Good thing for your military to be able to say the same to politicians who want to grandstand in international fora or entertain the population with some foreigner-bashing. And its also a Good Thing for national security to be putting that 4% of GDP into building up your national skills, and hence wealth and social stability.
.
Geography makes Australia is about the safest place in the world after NZ – the tyranny of distance hurts our economy, but helps our defence.
Yairs. Gold star, pink elephant, Haiku, but two can play at that game.
*launches lulz-seeking Google-Fu*
They’ve also “conceded” my point about cruise missiles, from a waaay earlier thread that was…erm…ostensibly about something completely different. You’ll note that the government has yet to take up your other suggestion on naval propulsion systems.
Is it a gamble? It’s only twentyish years, which is a short space of time in terms of force buildup these days. Leaving aside the issue of a serious rival (e.g. China) spending enough money on kit, there are material qualitative (e.g. technology) gaps to overcome.
China’s not going to build a fleet of aircraft carriers (or their equivalent) and learn to operate them effectively in two decades, even if they wanted to.
In any case, power projection with aircraft carriers is going to become a lot harder, not easier – something the Chinese themselves are likely to exploit when it comes to the power balance with Taiwan.
China’s approach to Taiwan in the Hu-Wen era is largely political anyway, having learned the lessons of the mistakes of the Jiang era in the 1990s.
What a marvellous thread that was,
SideshowSidewinder. An inspiring example of everyone getting together to lay shit on someone in glorious harmony.Now, to play the Strocchist I-said-it-fust game a bit further:
Liam in September last year:
White Paper:
Why do we call that department “Defence”?
I’m 63 years old and can’t remember any occasion when that mob have defended us against attack.
I can remember when we have attacked others. Including today.
So maybe we should name it the Offence [or even offensive] Department?
Well, that’s rather the point of a defence force that does strategic planning, Hannah’s Dad.
But you’re right; to be technically correct, and to answer Derrida Derider’s point about arms races, an arm of the ADF should be renamed the Department of Deterrence. Producing in the mind of the enemy the fear to attack, etc. etc.
They can’t even get the staff for 6 submarines, how the hell are they going to manage it with 12?
The seppos have a heap of troops in armoured vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they’re still losing. We need more boots on the ground, more soldiers out there on foot treating the locals like human beings. Alternately, we could just bring them all home. Either works for me, but neither requires billions on fancy tech that doesn’t work properly.
Anyone else find the China hype a bit bloody daft? They’re not stoopid in Beijing – you can signal your intent without banging the drum and yelling “in your face!”
Which makes me think it was for a domestic audience – in which case – calm down ya dills! There’s no issue to address there.
First time Ive thought “welcome to amateur hour” with the new govt.
Seriously, who on earth thinks a regional arms race would merely be between little old us and the PRC? If there is one (and there is—apart from us the Japanese are also geting Joint Strike Fighters, with Singapore not far behind) what does it benefit us not to get out oar in? This way we can be at least semi-independent of Uncle Sam.
Ever since I heard of the radical increase in the submarine arm (we’ll probably end up with the strongest such force of a non-UN-security-council-member state, certainly in the Pacific) I can’t help but think that this new ‘navalism’ is a reaction to John Howard taking Australia into Bush’s war of choice. Think about it. A Coalition government elected in 2016 or 2019 won’t have much discretionary defense spending power, not unless they scrap the new bluewater fleet which is just being commissioned then.
Large diesal powered vessels have limited utility in occupying/pacifying lands or fighting counter-insurgencies.
“Get our oar in.” How could I get such a lame pun wrong?
They can’t man the ships either … mind you, when unemployment hits 10% the navy may find it easier find staff.
All up its been a banner day for the Rudd govt. Defence gets a huge boost, and the CPRS delayed. How is this different to Howard?
A question: how would we have intervened in the slaughter of the East Timorese except with troops, ships, helicopters? I’d really like an answer to that question. I never get it when I ask it.
You only have to say the word “defence” and people on our side of politics drag out all their old ill-informed arguments – even though they’ve never given 5 minutes of serious thought to any defence question, they’re just agin’ it!
I marched against the Iraq war with everyone else, I’m no militarist, but I strongly believe that defence spending has to be maintained at a reasonable level. We don’t spend an extravagant amount on defence in this country.
The emphasis on submarines seems very smart – big bang for our buck. They’re hard to get sailors for, but they’re much cheaper than surface ships – more effective, too.
And the White Paper is explicitly based on a more regional and independent foreign policy. Who on our side of politics could argue with that?
“A question: how would we have intervened in the slaughter of the East Timorese except with troops, ships, helicopters? I’d really like an answer to that question. I never get it when I ask it.”
We should have put the relationship with the US on the line to get them to do it. The only time we ever need them and Clinton is too busy sorting cigars to pay any attention, thanks for the quid pro quo great ally, forget Korea, Vietnam, 1st Iraq war et al.
However, point taken, valid, but could there be a level of moderation that says we have a military, but questions to level of expenditure and type that we presently nurture?
“most of which could have been written by a half-decent honours student in international relations with access to Google. ”
But you wouldn’t get such tripe served up by a half-DECENT international relations student.
Gila: but there are big questions about a) whether the projected increases in defence spending are “reasonable”, and b) whether the money is being spent on the right things.
The white paper does not provide sufficient information to debate either properly.
How to get more Submariners?
Pay them more – lots more.
Defence academic Alan Dupont agrees with you on costs Robert. To me it sounds like Rudd wants a blue water navy, something that Australia gave away when it got rid of an aircraft carrier, and rightly too. And I notice that there is plenty of attack potential in the aircraft and subs being sought. So we are no longer concentrating on defensive roles…shades of the Pacific deputy sheriff perhaps.
Razor: agree wholeheartedly.
My comment being moderated?
Aw gosh, there I was believing our heroic military were laying their lives on the line out of love of country and in defence of our freedoms and Razor comes along and suggests they do it for crass commercial reasons.
I’ve got a better idea. Outsource the operation of the subs to India.
We do need heavy lift capability in our fleet to help in future Timor situations.
But we don’t need AWDs to protect them – sitting ducks.
As I’ve argued before: regional stabilising missions actually require more federal coppers and less sodgers.
sodgers aside, careful Lefty E…
Happy Mayday Mayday Mayday LPers…bbq distress stopper update
Super Tug SS Kevin up Yellow River…& stitched
On the foredeck boson Swan’n is knitting the sale of the century with Rio & BHP & ChinInc with the barking wombat Henry taking side bets…meanwhile…
Rear admiral Rudd aka St Kevin is aft & daft sewing and god forbid pearling and plaining cruise missiles…in a desperate attempt to kick start Obi mfg and consign (or is it rendition) Bill Leak & the ‘where’s my husband?’ underground campaign to a long weekend in Nauru, hell or a bikie’s club…the poison dwarf is rickshawing someone as we speak…
Perth’s Slightly Tampa in a Kraken Awakening that would embarrass any poverty stricken Somali has boarded in a clumsily starboard leaning attempt at Rovian refueling …while Dudd’s Army dance on below decks.
The Beijing Comedy Festival has on the other hand welcomed this timely and colorful White Paper Tiger boost to stand up numbers and ticket sales.
Angus is burning sausages with Kevin (another) & Phillip waving spatulas saying ‘what do I say?’ …replies & side salad are optional…resident blowfly White is not.
Pundits are googling ‘reds’ ‘beds’ ‘deads’ ‘heads’ oh and ‘saids’
Wong is MIA after consuming an Air Kevin sandwich. Speaking of pandemics Conroy is on sabbatical upgrading his Spanish Morse code; that should help.
DMO are falling about laughing, as usual. They know they’ll get the tax cuts.
More to come…reports the Chinese are dacked if not briefed have been dismissed by a real estate agent close to Joel F as alarmist.
Ken, what about NK? They need the money. If they fix up the Mumbai New Delhi Go program then maybe India…
Oh and btw Robert you are right.
Complete.and.utter.waste.of.money.
I see we’re still gonna use mercenaries (10.20 and 10.21)
“mercenaries?” Oh I see. You’re joking – right?
“Complete.and.utter.waste.of.money”
Not compared to sending stimulous payments out to the punters, I suggest. Much Defence spending is on wages which are spent mostly in regional areas, and provide society with lots of responsible, motivated and employable workers who contribute to the greater good for years after they leave the ADF.
PeterTB: those stimulus payments seem to have done their job – the latest retail figures should finally end all this idiotic carping about them. In fact, they may have worked better than expected.
Armagny: say we had written a sternly worded letter to the US, and they still ignored our requests, what then?
It is possible to be sceptical of most wars and want nothing to do with militarism and still see the need to maintain defence spending at a decent level – especially if you’re on the left and concerned about contributing our share to UN peacekeeping and the like.
A concern for peace means thinking seriously about defence issues.
There are lots of lessons from last century, but one of them is that disarmament can bring with it heavy costs, too – most importantly, shocking human costs.
In a department in which arse-covering is an art form, no one would want to be the person who broke this news to the secretary and the CDF (chief of Defence Force), who had enough troubles with the minister.”
The official claims to be one of several civilian and military officers who covertly investigated Ms Liu and Mr Fitzgibbon for several months.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/defence-rejected-minister-spy-link-concerns-20090506-avc4.html?page=-1
OOH Ahh…btw Robert another couple of lurkers here…
Kevin Rudd has stitched…
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/greener-browner-and-a-lot-later-20090504-aso6.html
If a flight attendant had handed Kevin Rudd a sandwich as unpalatable and malodorous as the triple-decker he was forced to eat yesterday, there would have been hell to pay
http://www.theage.com.au/national/no-complaint-from-rudd-about-crow-sandwich-20090504-aso8.html
I think Penny ate the…
Chew chew…chump…