Name: Australia's military muscle receives a shot in the arm
Brand: afr.com
SKU: afr-com-1
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Australia's military muscle receives a shot in the arm

preview

Print articleJul 3, 2020 – 3.42pmLog in&nbsp;or&nbsp;&nbsp;to save articleOn the day Scott Morrison outlined plans to build up , Chinese President Xi Jinping further cemented his grip on China's military apparatus, bringing the reserve forces directly under the control of the Communist Party's all-powerful Central Committee and Central Military Commission.Previously, command of the reservists was shared with local party committees. Now they are under the "absolute leadership" of the ruling party.Publicly, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds maintains Defence's strategic update and force structure plan is not about any one country, but everyone knows it is all about China.There are genuine questions emerging about whether Australia is muscling up sufficiently and quickly enough to be in a position to deter China from threatening its interests and be able to respond if they are attacked."To deter you don't need to have the capacity to defeat," says one former senior official.Advertisement"You simply need to have the capacity to be able to inflict sufficient damage to make a potential adversary think twice."The strategic update to the 2016 Defence white paper does not reflect a radical recasting of the security environment confronting Australia. The conclusion is the 2016 paper got the big picture thinking right, it is just that the region has militarised more quickly and technological leaps have come sooner than expected.However, while the update agreed the prospect of high-intensity military conflict was still unlikely, it has now become less remote.Additionally, Australia had lost the luxury of time. Previously, defence planners had assumed a 10-year strategic warning time for a major conventional attack.But so-called grey-zone activities such as economic coercion and cyber attacks, along with improved military capabilities such as longer-range and ballistic missiles, had made the warning period less relevant.AdvertisementThe review shifts the objectives set for the Defence Force. In the 2016 white paper, equal weighting was given to three goals: deterring, denying and defeating attacks on Australia and its national interests; contributing to the security of south-east Asian and Pacific countries; and assisting global coalitions to preserve the rules-based order.While the review doesn't rule out further Australian involvement in Middle East conflicts, it makes clear the focus for the Defence Force needs to be on the Indo-Pacific.Coupled with the review is the promise of spending $270 billion over the next decade on new capability for the military, up from $195 billion over the 2016-26 period.This will include the acquisition of long-range anti-ship missiles for the air force's Super Hornets, the acquisition of a ballistic missile defence shield for Australian forces on operations, the development of undersea surveillance to protect shipping lanes from enemy mines, and research into hypersonic weapons.It also affirms the commitment to 12 new submarines – now with a budget of $89 billion – nine frigates ($45 billion) and hundreds of armoured infantry vehicles (up to $27 billion).However, some earlier promises have become a bit vague. The 2016 white paper anticipated buying up to seven Triton maritime surveillance drones (Australia has ordered three so far) but now says decisions are yet to be made on the mix between manned and unmanned aircraft.AdvertisementA has also been delayed until late next year.While the initial commentary suggested Australia needed to rapidly build up its arsenal, the Force Structure Plan does nothing to bring forward the construction of the new submarines and frigates. It does, however, finally confirm all six Collins-class submarines will have their life extended, at a cost of up to $6 billion.Hugh White, principal author of the 2000 Defence white paper, gives the strategic update and force structure plan a bare pass.He welcomes the government acknowledging the deterioration in Australia's strategic circumstances but believes it has squibbed on making fundamental changes to the balance of the Defence Force that would reflect these realities.And while injecting a note of urgency, nor is the government acting quickly enough to address the military challenge.Advertisement"This is a defence policy entirely devoid of a military strategy," White tells AFR Weekend."The government is drumming up a sense of crisis but is strolling along like it is Sunday afternoon – and it's going in the wrong direction."White is particularly critical of the continued spending on surface ships, saying they would be vulnerable in the event of conflict at sea.He also questions why Defence needs to build up its amphibious capabilities."How big a difference is 5000 Diggers going to make landing in Asia?" White asks rhetorically. "We continue to spend billions on forces we don't need."AdvertisementWhite argues more submarines and aircraft are needed to have the "assured capacity to sink a lot of Chinese ships and shoot down a lot of Chinese aircraft"."The concept of deterrence they are talking about makes no sense," he says."For it to work, it's got to be credible and for it to be credible you've got to be confident they can't hurt you more than you can hurt them and against China that is not at all true."People are attracted to the idea of deterrence because it sounds like a way of winning wars without fighting."What Australia needs to do is ensure operations against Australia and Australian interests will not succeed. That means stopping China projecting power by sea or air into our neighbourhood."The former senior official quoted earlier also has reservations. They said the additional spending was relatively modest but well targeted, such as the creation of an independent satellite communication network, autonomous platforms and long-range missiles.AdvertisementBut the former official saw a tension between the public rhetoric with Scott Morrison's portents of the 1930s and the substance of the reviews, noting in the fine print of the strategic update the likelihood of a high intensity conflict breaking out had been assessed as remote in the 2016 white paper but was now less remote, which amounted to a gradual shift."It's sensibly abandoned the notion we would get a 10-year warning period," the former official says."But if you genuinely believe the strategic environment has worsened, then you would be very disappointed with the substance of the announcements. It doesn't match the description of a dramatic downturn in our strategic circumstances."Reaction from China so far has been relatively muted. Its Foreign Ministry said simply on Wednesday "all countries should avoid an arms race and refrain from purchasing unnecessary military equipment".File that under "thanks but no thanks". The Force Structure Plan shows the government's determination to continue to spend more on defence despite the coronavirus-induced recession.AdvertisementMorrison hit upon that dilemma of cost versus risk when he warned in his speech on Wednesday the post-COVID-19 world would be poorer and more dangerous.Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Marcus Hellyer, a leading authority on defence economics, says the military's annual budget will grow by as much as 9 per cent over coming years."No other portfolio in this age of coronavirus deficits can boast such growth," he says.Hellyer says one of the big questions confronting Defence and the government will be affordability of its planned acquisitions that have been rolled over from the 2016 white paper – headlined by the frigates and submarines – and the new commitments."We've still got the same funding envelope. I'm not convinced it will all fit," he says."The cost of sustaining new equipment is vastly more than what it is replacing. Defence is not giving up capabilities. It's not retiring what it has and everything it does it gets replaced.Advertisement"This is a good first step to try to grapple with these issues. It's not the last word. Part of the challenge is the mega projects lock in lots of funding but they don't deliver for a long time. It needs to do more to crack that nut of how to get more capability more quickly."ASPI's executive director Peter Jennings, whose hawkish views have seen his think tank castigated by Beijing, says Morrison's comparisons of the modern era to the 1930s, a period marked by the Great Depression and rise of Nazism and Japanese militarism that culminated in World War II, was a stark warning to take things seriously."Unlike the Defence white paper, which was about designing the perfect force for the second half of the 2030s, this is about now, and reasonably urgent requirements to purchase equipment that gives the ADF firepower in the relative short term," he says."It shows you how deeply worried the government is about the situation in the Indo-Pacific."Log in&nbsp;or&nbsp;&nbsp;to save articleFollow the topics, people and companies that matter to you.AdvertisementFetching latest articles

Print articleJul 3, 2020 – 3.42pmLog in&nbsp;or&nbsp;&nbsp;to save articleOn the day Scott Morrison outlined plans to build up , Chinese President Xi Jinping further cemented his grip on China's military apparatus, bringing the reserve forces directly under the control of the Communist Party's all-powerful Central Committee and Central Military Commission.Previously, command of the reservists was shared with local party committees. Now they are under the "absolute leadership" of the ruling party.Publicly, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds maintains Defence's strategic update and force...

public

Andrew Tillett

For 70 years, The Australian Financial Review has been the authority on business, finance and political news in Australia.

Australia's military muscle receives a shot in the arm

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS