[Ahovking]

Australia's defence has reached crisis point while Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been promising funding for roads, education and much else, but not a cent for national security, the opposition says.

Opposition defence spokesman Senator David Johnston said more than $25 billion had been removed from defence, with spending now down to 1.56 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) and set to fall to 1.49 per cent next year.

He said no other portfolio had endured such a financial assault.

"I really believe it has reached crisis point," he said in an address to the Lowy Institute in Sydney.

Senator Johnston said Defence Minister Stephen Smith had refused to rule out more cuts to defence in the budget next month.

"I see the prime minister traipsing across the country promising roads, education funding, NDIS plans, massive financial giveaways with not a cent to our national security," he said.

Senator Johnston said there had been funding cuts to all agencies directly and indirectly related to Australia's security and that was plainly irresponsible and dangerous.

He said the funding commitments in the 2009 Defence White Paper had never been achieved and, with the benefit of hindsight, that document was nothing less than an elaborate confidence trick.

Consequently, it would be difficult to believe anything the government might say about defence funding in the new Defence White Paper, set to be released by the end of June.

Senator Johnston said a new coalition government could commit only to not cutting defence spending any further and it would be less than honest to promise an immediate increase.

"Our aspiration is that as soon as we have come to terms and corrected the current fiscal situation, we will return to the aspiration of two per cent of GDP and three per cent real growth in the defence budget," he said.

"I don't believe for one moment that rebuilding Defence will be easy, but it will be done."

We should be spending a minimum of 2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) not a 1.56 per cent of GDP. It seems Julia Gillard see's the answer to Australian Defence is allowing more foreign solders on our land. It also seems that more foreign solders the less we have to spend of defence?.

We havent spent this little since 1930s, when WW2 was just around the corner and we were caught with our pants down. Are we really going to repeat history and keep defence spending down on these levels till we are caught with our pants down AGAIN.

At these levels we wouldn't be able to buy the 100 F35 leaving us with a strategy gap (we would lose Air power to indonesia), Replace our ageing naval fleet (Already we rely on foreign ships to supply our own ships) and we would fall behind nations like indonesia, Vietnam, south africa and New Zealand (technology wise).

Gillard's Labor has done so much damage to Australia, but i didn't know how much damage the defence was taken. I could never vote for Gillard's Labor in fear of being invaded by Fiji or new zealand.

(I was watching a Australian military expert/analyser said: the only thing stoping the army buying a box of little white flags for the troops is the cost of the box and the little little white flags. Its gotten that bad. )

[foxdemon]

If you feel so strongly about this matter, you should write a letter to your federal member and your federal senators.


As to why Gillard has done this, there is an election coming up and she needs all the money she can get for 'pork barreling' without upsetting the financial community by creating debt. She thinks defense spending won't earn her votes, so she has cut them back to the bone.

I guess the extreme approach she has taken shows how desperate she and her party are at the moment. Given she is currently under police investigation, I am wondering why she hasn't resigned.

[Rilzik]

Low defense spending in Europe is one thing, for a country located in Asia it's just idiotic.

Continuing this level of spending for a few years will gut what private defense industry Australia has left. If tensions continue to escalate in east asia or the Indian ocean, it will take Australia a decade to restore it's defense industry and another decade or more to then develop and field the defense systems.

Western countries always lament their dependence on the US. If they don't want to rely on the US, they need to step up. Creating a minimum of 2% defense spending isn't unreasonable, or high by any measure, nor will it bankrupt the country.

[Social_Critic]

I wonder where the idea that defense has to have an xx share of the national budget comes from? Defense spending ought to be figured in currency totals and not as a percentage of anything. These militarists behave as if their share of the budget were an entitlement. Seeing that Australia had money to go invade Afghanistan, it seems to me it ought to cut back more and stop their bullshit adventurism.

[Sithsaber]

I thought Australia has already agrred to being the joint bitch of the US and China. What do you need a military for? It's more likely you'll have to abandon the continent due to increased desertification than you being occupied by Beijing.

[foxdemon]

I wonder where the idea that defense has to have an xx share of the national budget comes from? Defense spending ought to be figured in currency totals and not as a percentage of anything. These militarists behave as if their share of the budget were an entitlement. Seeing that Australia had money to go invade Afghanistan, it seems to me it ought to cut back more and stop their bullshit adventurism.

The idea of setting a GDP target is due to the on going nature of defense spending. The same can be argued for other long term projects such as education. To say it costs $26 billion for defense only refers to a single year. A GDP percentage presents a better idea of what's going on, and this is why such government spending is described in these terms.




The Australian defense budget was around AUD$26 billion. Actually the real figure is higher. It came out around AUD$40 billion including the cost of the various government departments, defense housing, retirement benefits, etc. Of that $26 billion that goes into the military, about one third goes to wages and salaries. Over 25% goes to suppliers for day to day materials and services. These two figures are due to high labour costs and a high cost of doing business in Australia. That doesn't leave much for exercises, operations or new equipment. Given most of our equipment is worn out, there is a real problem with such a low level of defense spending.


The politician in the article has given a misleading figure. He says defense was cut $25 billion. I think it is more like $5 billion down per annum. Given the rough cost break down above, such a cut means the military is paying wages, paying rent and not much else. That means most current programs and training have come to a halt.


The monetary cost of Australia's operations in the middle east isn't that great. The force involved is small. Budget estimates put the cost of this operation at around an average of AUD$500 million per year over the last 12 years. Such an operation should be within what Australia can afford. Whether or not going into Afghanistan and Iraq was a good idea is another question.


[edit] forgot the link again:

http://www.defence.gov.au/Budget/11-12/pbs/index.htm

[Ahovking]

Low defense spending in Europe is one thing, for a country located in Asia it's just idiotic.

Completely agree.

Continuing this level of spending for a few years will gut what private defense industry Australia has left.

What private defense industry? We lost our private defense industry after world war 2.

I wonder where the idea that defense has to have an xx share of the national budget comes from?

Their was some sort of study that found (golden ratio between troops and Civilians) that 2 per cent of GDP spent on defence was usually effective on defending a nation population (any lower any and you dont have enough troops (ships and aircraft) to defend the population while any higher and your military becomes bloated.

I thought Australia has already agrred to being the joint bitch of the US and China. What do you need a military for? It's more likely you'll have to abandon the continent due to increased desertification than you being occupied by Beijing.

It seems all china want is our resources while american just want another strategic ally. No one want the land itself. We agree to be both joint bitch of the US and China is so our trade with china doesn't stop and our alliance with the US doesn't stop, both nations are increasingly more importent to us and we are trying to stay neutral.

[foxdemon]

Dangerous luxuries
John Angevine | 30 May 2011 | Analysis
Share on email Share on print Download PDF

The ANZUS alliance is emerging as an important alliance for stability in the Asia-Pacific region but the US must understand the implications Australian defence planning will have on the future alliance. In this Lowy Institute Analysis, US Army Colonel John Angevine writes that Australia’s current defence strategy does not correspond with the realities of Australia’s security situation. The plan for the modernisation of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is focused on expensive maritime and air capabilities for conflicts that the ADF could not fight alone. Consequently, the ADF is exposed with an atrophying ground force and expeditionary capability for the low-level regional operations in which it will be most likely to engage.

'The policies and strategies set forth prepare the ADF for contingencies that are least likely to happen, and dedicate large portions of the nation’s limited resources to missions that exceed the ADF’s capability.’


Key Findings
Australia is investing in high-end military capabilities, such as Air Warfare Destroyers, which are of very limited value to the ANZUS alliance.
Australia’s ability to sustain a regional ground force based intervention is in some doubt.
The Australian Defence Force envisioned in the Defence White Paper 2009 may not meet Australia’s security needs

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publicatio ... s-luxuries


Here's an American perspective on Australian defense planning and spending. A bit old, but it get's the point of view across.

[foxdemon]

Hmm, seems no one is interested in that article. I found the opinion presented quite interesting, if not always informed on Australian practices and history. None the less I welcome such analysis from American military thinkers. I can give a more detailed response to that article if anyone is interested.


Here are some other links of relevance:

The nature of the most recently cuts-

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/budget/budget.cfm


The force 2030 plan-

http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/





And an article praising the defense cuts...(he's factually wrong about current UACV capabilities).

Preparing for peace: it’s time to rethink defence spending

The most interesting question relating to the cuts in defence spending announced in the budget is whether they signify the early stages of rethinking security strategy. Of course they should, because there has been widespread recognition that the 2009 Defence White Paper was both confused and misjudged…
Author

John Langmore

Professor, School of Social and Political Sciences at University of Melbourne

Disclosure Statement

John Langmore does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The University of Melbourne Provides funding as a Founding Partner of The Conversation.
unimelb.edu.au
N4c9jmhj-1336616025 Does Australia really need 12 Joint Strike Fighters? U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago

The most interesting question relating to the cuts in defence spending announced in the budget is whether they signify the early stages of rethinking security strategy.

Of course they should, because there has been widespread recognition that the 2009 Defence White Paper was both confused and misjudged. Naturally this was not universal: many single-minded defence commentators were delighted with the unprecedented plan to increase real Australian military spending by 2% or 3% each year for the next decade.

No other area of Commonwealth outlays had ever been given such a ludicrously large promise for so long. The plan was irresponsible, both because of its size and also because it took no account of changing circumstances, strategic or fiscal.
The right cuts

The first budget after the White Paper increased outlays on the Defence Department by $1.5 billion, more than 50% more than the total outlays on diplomacy through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Last year’s budget recognised that Defence had to accept fiscal restraints also being imposed on other departments and there were small cuts. Graeme Dobell wrote shortly after that announcement that “The implicit reason for the demise of the 3% rule is that Defence is so bloated it can’t eat fast enough to get through all the cash it is being fed.”

The cuts for next year are more substantial, at $970m. More in the following three years total $5.5 billion over the four years. These sound like large amounts but the cut next year is only 3.4% of total defence resourcing. The forward estimates show military spending is expected to resume rising by over $2 billion a year in 2014-15 and afterwards. It seems present plans are that Defence will not suffer from much austerity.

More than half the cuts in 2012-13 are in capital works. Other substantial cuts are through reducing the number of civilian employees by 1000 during the next two years, in administration costs and reduced use of consultants. These are entirely sensible as the civilian component of Australia’s defence establishment is often criticised for being excessively large when compared to similar countries.
Rethinking Joint Strike Fighters

On 3 May this year, Julia Gillard and Stephen Smith announced a two-year delay in committing to order 12 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), saving a total of about $1.6 billion. Two are already ordered for testing and training purposes.

Smith said this delay is about the same as that of the US Government. Neither the PM nor the Minister hinted at any reconsideration of the commitment to purchasing the Fighters. Still, the initial plan to purchase a total of 100 was not reiterated. This at least leaves room for reconsideration of the number to be purchased, but the whole program should be questioned.

The Joint Strike Fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-35, is the most expensive military-industrial project in history. The initial plan was to develop a radar-dodging stealth plane which could replace four types of fighters and bombers. The US planned to buy 2400; it was expected to be the principal fighter for 50 years; and to generate major sales to allies starting in 2010.

In 2010, then US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that “the JSF program has not fully demonstrated that the aircraft design is stable, manufacturing processes are mature and the system is reliable”. Senator John McCain calls the project “a train wreck”.

The average price of each plane has doubled and is still growing. None is expected in service until 2016. Program costs had risen to $380 billion by the middle of last year. The F-35 is likely to cost a third more to operate than existing fighters. Yet it only has a range of about 1000 km.

At a time when all US government spending has to be cut, some analysts suggest the program should be abandoned. This possibility is made even more attractive by recognition that the technology of pilotless drones is already sufficiently sophisticated to replace all piloted fighter planes at a fraction of the cost.

The debate continues in the US and so it should in Australia. Continued commitment to purchasing large numbers of still unproven, hugely costly and probably outdated JSFs just because the Australian Air Force wants to retain interoperability with the US might well involve squandering tens of billions of dollars. A rigorous, comprehensive and impartial study is required.
How many submarines does Australia need?

Every aspect of the other huge military investment project announced in 2009, the plan to design and build 12 new submarines in Australia, should also be sceptically reviewed. Are foreseeable threats to Australia seriously likely to require this type of defence? Or is this an example of worst-case fantasy among defence planners whose predisposition is to imagine the most threatening possibilities imaginable?

If acquisition of a few new submarines is considered to be justified, are 12 needed? Why do they have to be built to an Australian design, which would probably maximise the cost? Could an existing design from Japan or a European country be adopted or adapted for conditions in Australian waters? What are the lessons from the difficulties in crewing the existing Collins class submarines?

It is unlikely that the $214 million announced by Julia Gillard to prepare for the decision on submarine design and workforce requirements will lead to consideration of some of these difficult questions. But the taskforce working on a new defence White Paper must do so if they are going to prepare a persuasive document.
Peacetime thinking

Preparation of a new defence White Paper is fully justified by the inadequacies of the 2009 version, by the evolution of the strategic situation, of technology and of the fiscal constraints.

Defence does not have a paramount claim on public funds in a time of relative peace. Community preferences are for improvements in health and education services, infrastructure and opportunities for employment.

It is therefore necessary for defence to be considered in the context of financial constraints and of over-riding foreign policy priorities. Australian’s security will be best served by more effectively balancing diplomatic and military spending.

Link: http://theconversation.com/preparing-fo ... nding-6851

[foxdemon]

It seems nobody at all is interested in Colonel Algevine's response to the 2009 white paper. It is a pity as he does shot some holes in the Australian establishment's thinking on defense, even if his alternative recommendations aren't so hot.


The jist of Algevine's argument is that Australia is planning to fight a high intensity conventional war against much larger powers. It can not win such a war as Australia does not have anywhere near the industrial capacity, nor population base, of either India or China,... umm or even Japan for that matter, and would be utterly crushed in a war of attrition. Thus, he argues, Australia would be wiser to spend limited defense dollars on the sort of force that would be most useful to an alliance.


We need to carefully evaluate our geopolitical circumstances, use this to determine a viable strategy, and this strategy will inform our vision of the force structure and thus how we spend our money.


Let's set out some options for Australia's strategy.


1/ Assert absolution sovereign independence with the development and deployment of a credible nuclear deterant.

This is the only theoretical way Australia (any other smaller power) could defeat a large industrial power in total war. However, though theoretically possible, there are political realities that make it practically impossible. Australia is supposed to be party to the non-proliferation treaty. It would be a great scandal on the international stage if Australia suddenly declared a nuclear weapons program. Additionally, and more importantly than the international level, there is an overwhelming lack of support for anything nuclear amongst Australian's population. It is simply politically untenable.


2/ Create and maintain as strong a conventional force as possible for high intensity warfare against another nation state.

This is what the white paper identifies as the chosen course of action. As Angevine and others point out, Australia can't fight off a larger industrial power all by herself. Such a strategy is flawed and thus the defense plan based on it is flawed.


3/ Follow the traditional 'colonial' strategy of supplying troops to support a large ally as part of an alliance.

This is what we have done historically. The draw back of this approach is that the most powerful member of the alliance gets to make the decisions. I guess this is why the Australian establishment would like to fancy they can stand alone in the world.

However, it is realistic to expect to fight wars as part of an alliance. We don't lack for resources and thus have no motive to attack another state. Our fear is that a larger industrial power might be short of critical resources and come after us. A war of this nature will involve many players and an alliance is the sensible solution.

The trick is to avoid falling back into the colonial mentality and learning to operate within an alliance as a partner rather than as a subordinate.


4/ Give up and become part of a larger nation.

Maybe America needs 7 extra states? Sound silly? Maybe there will be a "greater America" one day when Canada, NZ and Australia combine with the Union.....




OK, so there is an outline of how we might approach an understanding of strategic options. Angevine also points out that high intensity war with anther nation state is less likely than other crisis, such as disaster relief, peace keeping, and low intensity warfare. If we put all our resources into a force intended to fight a losing war all by ourselves against a larger power, we will not have a force that is prepared for the sort of operations we find ourselves involved in.

In short, the 2009 white paper is a recipe to waste a large amount of money on military equipment that is not of much use to us.