When the past government and the current one underscored that the warning time for the defence of Australia has been dramatically reduced because of Chinese behavior and lack of commitment to the “rules-based order”, it seemed like a critical turning point.
Only it really is not.
The current government has cut significantly current and already planned ADF capability, such as the eliminating the 4th F-35 squadron in favor of a new SSN and new surface ships in the future decade.
Not only is this not only a Paul Revere moment, it looks punting the ball moment.
And the shift being planned is dramatic.
Marcus Hellyer has carefully gone through the figures in the defence industrial plan and concluded that there is indeed a dramatic shift.
As he concluded about the plan:
It’s clear we’ve moved on from a balanced force. But what have we moved on to? The NDS states that the ADF is now becoming a focused force. However, it’s not quite clear what it is focused on doing since the NDS states (page 7) that the ADF still needs the capacity to:
- defend Australia and our immediate region;
- deter through denial any potential adversary’s attempt to project power against Australia through our northern approaches;
- protect Australia’s economic connection to our region and the world;
- contribute with our partners to the collective security of the Indo-Pacific; and
- contribute with our partners to the maintenance of the global rules-based order.
That pretty much covers every task in every part of the world which doesn’t sound very focused. The NDS also says that the ADF force structure is focused on deterrence and supporting a ‘Strategy of Denial’. It doesn’t really say who it is trying to deny or deter from doing what. One can assume it’s China, but from doing what exactly is not quite clear. Whatever it is, we seem to need significant maritime capabilities to deter China from doing it—but only at some point in the distant future.
We’ve noted that Maritime capabilities absorb an unprecedented 38% of the acquisition budget over the coming decade. Those are split into two main categories: Undersea warfare at $63-76 billion and Maritime capabilities for sea denial and localised sea control operations (when somebody comes up with as clunky a title as that, you know we are in the realm of deep conceptual confusion) at $51-69 billion. Those total to $114-145 billion with a mid-point at $129.5 billion.
However, only two projects dominate that spending: the SSN enterprise at $53-63 billion and the Hunter-class frigate at $22-32 billion. Again those two figures sum to $75-95 billion with a mid-point at $85 billion. Two capabilities alone consume $85 billion (remember those figures are just the spend over the decade, not the total acquisition cost). That’s 65.6% of the Maritime spend. If we multiply 38% by 65.6% we can see that 25% of Defence’s acquisition spend over the decade goes on just two capabilities.
But it gets worse because those projects—all going well—will only have just started to deliver actual capability by the end of the decade. The first Hunter is due to be delivered in 2032 and enter service in 2034. The first SSN is scheduled to be handed over to the RAN around 2032—all going well in Defence’s most complex megaproject ever. And even then, one submarine or frigate does not a capability make.
In summary, we get virtually no in service, sovereign capability in return for 25% of Defence’s acquisition spend over the coming decade—and Defence has had to give up or defer a lot of planned capability to achieve that result. Whatever the balanced force is moving on to, it’s going to take a lot of time and money to get there with little medium-term return on that investment.
I would add to his argument that the actual role of the Royal Australian Navy within the Australian defence strategy is not at all clear.
When one has what is in the future the force which is programmed, just what is the con-ops of that force in the defence of Australia?
I had a chance to continue my discussion with Peter Jennings during my April visit to Australia.
And he explained why it is so difficult for an Australian government to surge rather than to plan.
As he noted: “Our professional military discuss with their counterparts, joint operations and the challenges to be met. But no government wants to discuss in public what we would actually do in a crisis. In fact, officials in government do not even wish to discuss such issues.”
The government is reluctant, according to Jennings, to discuss openly realistic scenarios for joint operations. Discussing military contingencies at the political level is not an Australian political art.
I would add that failure of the political class in the West to spend time in training in crisis management is a major one. During the Cold War, I personally participated in a number of exercises with actual political leaders honing crisis management skills. This is certainly evident today.
Jennings added that for a Labour Government there is little interest in discussing military contingencies for another reason.
Australia’s sovereignty will be “compromised” by working in a coalition where Australia is clearly a subordinate partner.
And with the prospect of Trump returning to the U.S. presidency and demanding “where is the beef” in current ADF capability, such a prospect is not one which the Labour Government would look forward to.
We then discussed acquisition reform difficulties.
Jennings noted that the so-called AUKUS 2 basket whereby Australia would gain access to technology which could rapidly be inserted into the ADF will not be if the traditional acquisition system holds sway. A prototype is not a capability until someone actually embeds it into the operating force.
I was quite struck by the difference between the activity of the Nordics whom I have visited over the same time as the Aussies and the activity of the current government.
This quote from the Swedish Chief of Staff says it all:
“We look at Ukraine, they are masters in using already developed civil technology to solve military problems. This is an area I look very carefully into because this is very interesting and very promising — if you also have the courage of sitting together in rooms and making sure that we understand each other, that this is what we need to solve this problem. Do you have it? Can we adjust it to something? If we start from the very beginning on a sophisticated system, it takes like 10 years. The time is not there.
“We have been working in a situation for decades, with a lot of time, no money. Now it’s opposite: there is finance, but the time is limited. So for my generation of officers, it’s a mental transition and change right now where we need to find a way ahead where we speed up.”
And that is the challenge facing Australia but where the plan for the future is funded by cutting currently capability.