Lowy Institute
16 of 20 This post is part of a debate on MH17

Last night Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced that Australia has prepositioned 50 Australian Federal Police officers, presumably from the International Deployment Group, in London. The Foreign Minister is on her way to Kiev to personally negotiate access to the crash site for the AFP and Australia's aviation officials, to be part of an international investigation under the leadership of the Dutch Government.

A police-led, military-enabled force is the right solution for the Australian Government to propose, but several conditions must be set before police and officials can be deployed to the crash site.

The crash site is in an active combat zone, and as the OSCE reminded us only days ago, there are more than 100 separate armed groups surrounding the self-styled Donetsk People's Republic. No intervention will be able to proceed without explicit guarantees from both the Ukrainian and Russian governments that they will exercise their influence to limit the activities of military forces in the vicinity of the crash site. Even then, there would still remain the possibility of rogue actors in the area. For that reason, whatever international force is sent should be armed for their personal safety.

Yet the crash site is located only a short distance from the Russian border, and for that reason it would be far too provocative to deploy international military forces in any strength to secure the international investigation effort. If Putin were to allow the deployment of NATO military assets within 30km of the Russian border, this would open him to severe domestic political criticism. Already there are some suggestions that Putin is under domestic presure for appearing to have bowed to foreign leaders. Too much provocation and Russia will respond with a show of force of some type, perhaps including additional deployments of military units to the border with Ukraine.

So the best solution will be an armed international police force with a limited mandate to secure the crash site and protect investigators.

Read More

This will take some time to achieve. Julie Bishop will be negotiating a sort of status-of-forces agreement with the Ukraine detailing what powers of arrest police officers will have, what happens to them in the event they are involved in a car crash or other legal matter, and the circumstances in which they might be authorised to use their personal weapons. The AFP will be thinking about how it might detain people trying to interfere with the crash site, which authorities those detained might be transferred to, and the logistics of maintaining 50 or so officers in a fairly remote rural area in Eastern Europe.

This will be a military-enabled mission. Military aircraft are already involved in moving bodies from Ukraine to Amsterdam and might be involved in moving the international police force and possibly aircraft parts recovered from the crash site. Military intelligence will be crucial to an ongoing security assessment of the area in which the investigation will take place, and there will need to be detailed liaison between the AFP and Defence on the local intelligence picture. Finally, the Australian Defence Force is thinking through worst case contingencies. If an AFP officer is kidnapped by a local separatist group, the recovery effort could involve the ADF's Special Operations Command. If the situation in Eastern Ukraine deteriorates and a tentative ceasefire collapses, military forces might be required to evacuate the international investigation force.

The good news is that this effort is being led by Australia and the Netherlands, who have recent and extensive experience working alongside each other in Afghanistan. Australian military, intelligence, police, and diplomatic officials worked together with their Dutch counterparts for five years while our soldiers served alongside each other in Uruzgan. Those established mechanisms for cooperation will go a long way to offsetting the fact that we are poised to deploy a substantial force to a country in which we haven't had any diplomatic presence for some time.

Hide
Comments
1 of 20 This post is part of a debate on MH17

Some quick thoughts on the shootdown of Malaysian Airlines flight 17:

  1. There are three likely possibilities as to who shot the aircraft down: Ukrainian military forces, Russian-aligned separatists (with or without Russian military assistance), and finally one of these two forces attempting to make it look like the other committed the act.
  2. It looks as if the US may have tracked some part of the missile launch, possibly using the Space Based Infrared Radar system of satellites. It is highly likely that US national technical assets will be able to approximate the point of origin of the launch, and the launcher. This means it will be up to the US to make the case as to who fired the missile, potentially putting Washington in a position of greater direct confrontation with Russia (beyond recently announced sanctions).
  3. The priority for the UN Security Council is to secure international access to the crash site rapidly, before evidence can be destroyed or disturbed. Australia is ideally positioned to lead an international crash investigation team. For a start, we are not the US or Ukraine. Secondly, we have highly skilled air crash investigators, who have recent experience working with Malaysian Airlines on the MH370 crash. The Australian Government should consider volunteering Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston to lead the air crash investigation, given the international trust he has built on the MH370 search and his previous military experience.
  4. Australia should consider the possibility that technical and possibly security support will be needed for the crash investigation and should be prepared to offer both. Given the proximity to the Russian border, NATO and the OSCE will not be ideally positioned to contribute to this effort. Armed police, as opposed to military, may be a less provocative solution to guarantee security for air crash investigators.
  5. If Russian-aligned separatists are shown to have fired the missile, it may provide the catalyst necessary to enlist Russian cooperation to de-escalate the Ukraine crisis.
  6. If on the other hand this is the result of a mistake by the Ukrainian military, this will embolden Russia and aligned separatists and lengthen the conflict.
Comments

This morning Prime Minister Tony Abbott and US President Barack Obama announced the conclusion of a series of agreements between the US and Australia. Chief among these is the US–Australia Force Posture Agreement. It details arrangements for the enhanced military cooperation measures first announced when Obama visited Australia in November 2011.

The agreement has taken longer than anticipated, largely because neither side has wanted to pick up the bill for the new defence facilities required in northern Australia. That issue appears to have been resolved, and the US President made a point of acknowledging the Prime Minister's recent commitment to rectifying shortfalls in Australian defence funding. The force posture agreement formalises existing plans to increase the rotation of US Marine Corps troops through Darwin, and to embark on trilateral military exercises in Southeast Asia. But it also the lays the foundation for new alliance defence initiatives, not least of which is a deepening Australian involvement in ballistic missile defence.

Though it wasn't seized on by media traveling with the Prime Minister, this US statement says that 'We are also working to explore opportunities to expand cooperation on ballistic missile defense, including working together to identify potential Australian contributions to ballistic missile defense in the Asia-Pacific region.'

Though BMD cooperation was mentioned in the last government's Defence White Paper, it's likely to accelerate under the Coalition government. This might mean the Australian Defence Force (ADF) could end up mounting advanced missiles on its Aegis-equipped air warfare destroyers, forming part of a US network in Asia equipped to shoot down hostile missiles. This cooperation is largely designed to guard against an increasingly belligerent North Korea, but will be watched keenly by China.

US Marine Corps rotations through Darwin will continue on their current trajectory, building to a full contingent of 2500 in 2-3 years. It is likely that the US Army will preposition military equipment and stores in Darwin too so it can respond more quickly to a crisis in South East Asia. Trilateral military exercises between the Marine Rotational Force-Darwin, the ADF, and either Indonesia or China have been mooted for some time and can now be realised.

Read More

US Air Force rotations through northern Australia should increase, assuming the force posture agreement clears the way for the expansion of runways and ramp space at RAAF Learmonth and RAAF Tindal. Australians should expect to see more USAF long-range bombers, transport aircraft, and air-to-air refuelers operating from those locations. There may have been a decision on the suitability of upgrading airfields at Australia's Cocos Island territory to support P-8 maritime surveillance operations too, as foreshadowed in the 2012 Australian Defence Force Posture report. These initiatives will deepen the US military's ability to mount operations from Australia, referred to by the White House as an 'anchor of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond'.

The announcements this morning also discuss strengthened space cooperation between the US and Australia. The US has already agreed to relocate a C band space surveillance radar to Exmouth in Western Australia as well as the establishment of a space telescope to classify and track objects in orbit. The next step would be the establishment of an Australian station as part of the US Space Fence program. In this promotional video from Lockheed Martin* a site for an S band surveillance radar is identified in Western Australia. This month the US Department of Defense awarded a US$914 million contract to build the first station in this program on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The second station in Australia could be operational by 2021, affording the US better geographic coverage of what is taking place in space. Space-based operations are becoming a critical area of cooperation between the US and Australia – Australia's geography offers unique advantages, underpinned by the skills of scientists in CSIRO and DSTO.

A detailed public conversation is now needed on what access the US military might have to naval facilities in Western Australia. Options ranging from increased US Navy ship visits to the hosting of US submarines, aircraft carriers, and amphibious groups have been mooted. This 2012 CSIS study outlines some of the options being considered.

A US presence in the Royal Australian Navy's Fleet Base West has also been discussed in detail during recent US congressional hearings. But Australian officials have thus far been coy with the public about where these conversations are headed. That's unnecessary; as the 2014 Lowy Institute Poll shows, support for the US alliance remains remarkably high. By not having a public conversation about the future posture of the US Navy on Australia's west coast, the Government cedes the ground to critics who argue that the US alliance should be done away with. This year's Defence White Paper process allows an opportunity to bring the public along with what officials have been privately discussing for years. Better to lay an informed case now, rather than abruptly announce basing options at AUSMIN later this year or when the 2015 Defence White Paper is released.

* Disclosure: Lockheed Martin is a corporate member of the Lowy Institute.

Image courtesy of @TonyAbbottMHR.

Hide
Comments

 

For the last few months, anyone who's been unlucky enough to blunder into my path has been assaulted with the arguments in my book Anzac's Long Shadow: The Cost of our National Obsession. If you're time poor, this review in the Spectator Australia does a great job of capturing them. If you're really time poor, here it is in 18 words: Australia's thinking about war is massively overbalanced towards largely emotive and superficial reflections on the First World War.

A case in point comes via the latest disclosure about the research the Australian Army's History Unit is funding. Keep in mind, money is being jealously husbanded all across Defence and this is one of the few areas of Army with a budget to commission external research. And also keep in mind that this research is coming from the Army's budget, not the Australian War Memorial. This is funding to help develop the Army's capability.

Of the twelve studies Army committed to funding this year, nine relate to the First World War. Some of these are relevant to current Army operations. For example, if his book Climax at Gallipoli is any guide, I am sure ANU academic Rhys Crawley will unearth useful observations from his study of logistics in the First World War. 

But a lot of the research seems quite frivolous.

It's hard to see how Soul of the Battalion: Battalion Bands in World War One, to be authored by Jillian Durrance, will help an Army adjusting to amphibious operations and hybrid threats. Stained glass consultant Bronwyn Hughes is no doubt an expert in her field, but does her forthcoming work Lights Everlasting: ANZAC Memorials in Stained Glass really have a place in Army's capability budget? Dr David Woods might produce a riveting work on his chosen subject (Downtime: Activities Undertaken by the Australian Light Horse Regiments in and Around their Contributions to the Palestine Campaign in 1917-19), but it seems unlikely to help inform modern cavalry operations.

Read More

Somehow, since it was launched, the Army History Research Grants Scheme has been corrupted to support a cottage industry of folksy but largely irrelevant histories. And the last 60 years of Army history seem to have been entirely forgotten.

Partly this is a supply problem: there don't seem to be a lot of researchers applying for these grants who are focused on improving military capability. But part of the problem is on the demand side: Army is accepting that it should grant money to feel-good projects that are unlikely to improve capability. The money might seem small fry (approximately $50,000 in total this year), but it could fund better, more meaningful research (on autonomous ground vehicles for example, which Army seems to have done very little applied thinking about).

And this is one of the few funding lines that gets reported. I imagine there are plenty of others that the forthcoming Defence First Principles Review might unearth.

Photo by Flickr user Wi Bing Tan.

Hide
Comments

Since 2007, the Defence Materiel Organisation has run an office charged with boosting Australia's defence exports. The Defence Export Unit, as it was initially known, was established with a budget of $34 million. It had a relatively inauspicious start – in 2009 it was unable to conduct its own business and strategic planning so called in the consultants. Shortly thereafter, its name was changed to Team Australia, and the unit adopted a strategy of mustering the many and varied Australian defence industry companies under a national banner at trade shows around the globe. In 2012, the same office was rebranded and relaunched as the Australian Military Sales Office.

In Senate Estimates last year, the Department of Defence concluded that in the seven years since the initiative was launched, over 240 companies had participated in export activities, helping to achieve industry contracts of over $760 million. It seems a reasonable return, but is it, given that Australia is the 13th largest spender on military hardware globally?

Australian and Australian-based defence companies have had some success in exporting to the rest of the world. New South Wales company Quickstep now produces the tail fin component for the Joint Strike Fighter, a contract worth more than $139 million over the next 14 years. This success came with federal and state government assistance totaling at least $14 million.

The Australian operations of French defence company Thales have also had some success in exporting their Bushmaster vehicle (pictured). The Bushmaster has been a successful project, its introduction perfectly timed for the expansion of Australian Defence Force (ADF) operations in Afghanistan; its sturdy design is believed to saved many soldiers' lives. Thales has sold Bushmasters for use with the Netherlands military, UK Special Forces, and most recently it sold four of the vehicles to the Japanese Self Defence Force.

Read More

Another success is the Australian-owned and publicly-listed Austal, which has constructed patrol boats for militaries in the Middle East and was selected as one of two companies to build Littoral Combat Ships for the US Navy. There have also been positive noises about the export potential for radar technology developed by CEAFAR and currently being retrofitted to the Royal Australian Navy's Anzac class frigates.

But compared to Australia's status as a major purchaser of military equipment, our defence industry could do better as an export industry. Part of the problem is our necessary dependence on Foreign Military Sales from the US and the relative lack of integration of our defence industry companies in US military supply chains. The bigger problem though, is that it is not clear what Australia's comparative advantage in defence industry is.

As the shape of ADF evolves in response to budgetary constraints, a changing strategic environment, and emerging defence technology, it will be important to assess what type of defence industry Australia should specialise in. One area ripe for investment is the emerging field of autonomous and unmanned underwater (as well as surface) vessels. DSTO is doing some work in this field and the Royal Australian Navy is sponsoring some innovative research, but it is far from clear that Australia is seriously investing in this technology. It makes sense for Australia to be a world leader in the development, production, and export of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). We have a skilled technological workforce, access to sophisticated defence technology, excellent defence scientists, and trusted collaboration linkages with the US Department of Defense and US defence industry. Most importantly, we have a pressing need for this kind of technological development – our large coastline and small population and military are pointing towards the development of AUV solutions.

Yet Australia does not have a good track record of embracing this kind of technology. The Royal Australian Air Force is years behind the debate on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and has only a small section charged with thinking about how to integrate UAVs into the RAAF force structure. The better example is the step-change investment into UAVs undertaken by Israel during the mid-1990s. Facing the dilemma of being a small country with a pressing need to innovate and maintain a defence technology edge, Israel disproportionately invested in the development of UAV technology. Today, Israeli companies lead the world in export sales of UAVs. Even the UAVs Australia deployed in Afghanistan were Israeli produced.

If Australia is to modernise its defence force at a cost of several hundred million dollars over the next 15 years, it needs to also be thinking about how to modernise its defence industry. A critical part of that will be working out where Australia's comparative advantage lies – what we can build that both the ADF and the rest of the world wants.

Photo by Flickr user ISAF Media.

Hide
Comments

Twenty months ago the Chief of the Defence Force delivered a speech at the Lowy Institute outlining how he thought the 2013 White Paper would be developed. Today at the University of Canberra's National Security Institute, the CDF again gave a speech foregrounding a Defence White Paper. But this time, it seemed we heard from a less encumbered General David Hurley (pictured).

Broadly, General Hurley's National Security Institute speech outlined the timing and process for the 2015 Defence White Paper. Most importantly, he signaled that the Defence organisation is seriously examining  many of the underlying assumptions that have characterised military strategy for the past quarter-century.

First, the nuts and bolts of how Australia's future strategic defence policy will be produced. In his scripted remarks, the CDF said that new Deputy Secretary Strategy Peter Baxter will lead the White Paper process in close consultation with Vice Chief of the Defence Force Air Marshal Mark Binskin. Importantly, these two senior leaders will also lead the Force Structure Review, previously allocated to a separate area within Defence. This alignment is entirely sensible.

General Hurley confirmed that the Government intends to finalise the White Paper by March 2015,  a mere twelve months away. But I can only assume he chose his words carefully ('finalise' does not mean 'release') to avoid locking the Government into a public release in March next year. 

Hurley also said that the Defence White Paper team will go back to government at least five times during the next twelve months for further political advice. This too is reassuring; the last White Paper seemed to get clear political direction at the beginning and end with little in between. Close consultation with government is particularly important for this White Paper given that the most important driver of strategy – the budget – is an inherently political decision.

The crux of this speech, though, was General Hurley's commitment to 'review the assumptions that underpin the choice of Principal Tasks to ensure that they remain appropriate to our strategic circumstances'.

Read More

One of the failings of the last White Paper, in my view, was that the principal tasks for the Australian Defence Force seemed to be little changed from the template derived in 2009, and arguably 2000. The judgement not to change the principle tasks could be in step with the changing strategic environment, but intuitively that seems unlikely.

Defence is also reviewing strategic warning time and mobilisation. These concepts have been pivotal in past Australian thinking about how to structure a small military to face a broad range of threats. The US Quadrennial Defense Review argues that the future of the US military will be more about high-readiness forces that can deploy at the critical time and achieve decisive overmatch in any skirmish or tension in the region. I suspect Australia, too,  will need a force structure that relies less on expansion and mobilisation.

In unscripted remarks, the CDF identified three areas Defence needs to be thinking hard about. Firstly, how to achieve limited sea control through the use of air and sea platforms. Secondly, how to deploy a battalion-sized force and sustain it. And finally, how to fight in the cyber environment.

On this last point, General Hurley outlined that 'the cost of achieving assured access to space and cyberspace that underpins our defence and national security capabilities will certainly increase'. That phrase, 'assured access', stems from US thinking about the global commons and is one we are certain to see more of over the next 12 months. General Hurley also flagged that Defence will begin a more realistic discussion of what the ADF's new amphibious vessels might be used for – one that doesn't just talk about humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. That's a welcome development too.

Two other points worth noting from the speech. The first is the changing relativity of Australia's status in Asia. Hurley says 'as other "middle power" states rise, we will need a stronger voice if we are to be heard'. He reminded his audience that 'In twenty years from now, Indonesia's economy will be nearly twice as large as Australia's…that development by itself has important repercussions for our security'.

This speech reflects a Defence bureaucracy ready to come to grips with the paradoxes in Australian military strategy and the deferred challenges of Australia's future force structure.  But the biggest challenge is out of Defence's hands: as General Hurley says, there should be no underestimating the challenge of raising defence spending to anything like 2% of GDP. In Hurley's words 'managing this commitment will be a defining element of our defence future'.

 

Hide
Comments
Election Interpreter 2013

Part 1 of this profile of Labor's prospective new defence minister Mike Kelly MP and shadow Defence Minister Senator David Johnston appeared yesterday.

For men who will have responsibility for administering war if their party is elected tomorrow, neither David Johnston nor Mike Kelly want to talk much about the prospect of violent conflict.

But I'm interested to tease out their views on what I see as the big issues in the defence portfolio: Australia's changing strategic environment, the US alliance, and military strategy. Just for good measure, I'm also interested in their views on why Australia is developing an amphibious assault force and what they think it will be used for.

Asked about Australia's strategic environment, David Johnston sees 'cells dividing a bit' and 'countries that are feeling a bit bullied'. He concludes that Australia's security environment has worsened since 2009 because of energy dependence, particularly in North Asia: 'the security of our sea-lanes has to be something that's a given, and I think we're a long way from that at the moment'. We talk in detail about the energy infrastructure of Australia's north-west coast and the obligation for Canberra to provide security for these platforms, though Johnston is mindful that this will not be done cheaply.

Mike Kelly's concerns are more immediate: transition in Afghanistan, ongoing Islamist extremism, terrorism and asymmetric threats as well as 'always bubbling concerns' in the Korean peninsula and Iran.

Read More

Like most of their parliamentary colleagues, an invitation to discuss the security consequences of the rise of China engenders a perfunctory dismissal of Australia's need to choose between China and the US. For Johnston, interdependence will prevail: 'China desperately needs the US market' and Australia must develop a military-to-military relationship with China. Kelly sees Australia in a 'good constructive role between the US and China'.

It's a subtle difference and is best explained by their political ancestry. Like Julie Bishop, Johnston is drawn from Western Australia, where China was an enticing trade partner long before it emerged as a possible military-strategic competitor. Kelly was drawn to parliament by Kevin Rudd, and very much carries Rudd's view of Australia as a bridge between the major Pacific powers.

When it comes to the US alliance, what can Australia provide? Kelly confidently replies that 'our big strategic value is in having submarines', particularly in an anti-submarine warfare role. Johnston too talks about the utility to the US of having quiet diesel submarines able to operate in shallow warm waters. But the primary role for Australia in ANZUS is in the provision of intelligence, Johnston believes, particularly within the neighbourhood (which he defines as Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, and the South West Pacific). The Joint Strike Fighter, which both see as critically important, does not seem to factor into Australia's alliance equity.

I ask Johnston about the possibility of a future US naval presence in Western Australia and he suggests it will be 'no more or less than they've had in the past'. He doesn't perceive the development of a greater US strategic footprint in Australia, but sees access to Australia's training ranges as of greatest importance.

In explaining Australia's military strategy, Mike Kelly talks about 'the natural air-sea gap advantage that tends to drive capital acquisition' as well as the ever-present need to defend the nation, protect sea lanes, and project force. Johnston is more specific: 'my focus particularly is a naval, maritime focus'. He also emphasis the importance of readiness for the ADF. But neither articulates a clear military strategy or discusses alternative strategies that Australia might pursue to secure its wide national interests. Kelly notes this is a problem within the Australian Defence Force too: 'we need to grow and groom our people, broaden their horizons, deep select them and develop their strategic analysis.'

Both prospective defence ministers are keen to talk about humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in the region. This is one of the principle tasks David Johnston cites for the Australian Defence Force, and the first task he sees for the newly developed amphibious force. But as I remind them, these are amphibious assault ships, chosen specifically for their ability to deliver lethal combat power to a foreign shore. Though Johnston mentions that we should aspire to emulate a US Marine Expeditionary Unit, he concedes that the ADF is '5-10 years away from having a really meaningful assault capability'. Kelly agrees: 'they are a massive challenge', he says, but he notes the ships will give Australia a three-block war-type capability for the region.

I don't see either prospective defence minister having an easy time securing additional funding from Treasury in the next government. As sequestration bites the US military, much is being made of the concept of military innovation. Kelly mentions to me that the Royal Australian Air Force is the only service that formally rates innovation in its personnel appraisals. Johnston is hungry for good ideas too: 'I want to acknowledge people who are prepared to say, "I've thought this through, I think we can do this, let's have a go"'. As the aphorism goes, when the money stops the thinking starts.

Photo courtesy of the Defence Department.

Hide
Comments
Election Interpreter 2013

Mike Kelly's got a plane to catch and a marginal seat to win, but offers some final advice for a defence minister: 'the first report you ever get in Defence on anything is invariably incomplete or wrong. Be very careful about rushing to judgement on anything'.

It's good advice for the vastly important and now ominously creaking defence portfolio. In an hour-long interview with both of Australia's prospective defence ministers, I've barely touched the surface of the many issues facing whoever wins office on 7 September. But I've heard enough to know that, either way, Defence will end up with a minister deeply passionate about the portfolio, knowledgeable about defence equipment, and in fast need of learning on strategic issues.

Both Mike Kelly and his opposition counterpart David Johnston have a deep knowledge of the Defence Department and the military. That's rare for a portfolio that sees more leadership churn than other areas of government. On average, Australian defence ministers (and most department secretaries) last only two years in the job. Their opposition counterparts last even less. Most defence ministers arrive to the job with plenty of knowledge of politics, but little of military matters, and never have time to get fully up to speed.

That won't be the case for Australia's prospective defence ministers.

Read More

Apart from a one-year stint working on agriculture, forestry, and fisheries in the Gillard Government, Dr Mike Kelly has been working on defence issues since 1987 – as a military lawyer, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, and now Minister for Defence Materiel.

Senator Johnston also brings a deep understanding of defence. He's in the rare position of having had the shadow portfolio for five years and has amassed knowledge from endless senate estimates proceedings, visits to all the global defence manufacturing hubs of relevance to Australia, and military establishments all across the country.

Yet familiarity has not bred contempt and both Johnston and Kelly have a deep concern for the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. Three of them stare down from a poster in Kelly's parliamentary office with the challenge: 'what have you done for them today?' It's a message Kelly personally crafted through multiple iterations. Johnston too cares deeply for the men and women of the ADF. After reports soldiers had lacked combat support during an incident in Derapet, Afghanistan, Johnston designed a tactical force to better protect them. Even today he speaks most proudly of the part he played in bringing a counter-rocket system to the ADF's base in Tarin Kowt.

Both Johnston and Kelly have plenty to say about the equipment Australia will buy to modernise its defence force between now and 2030, and show an impressive technical mastery of the weapons of war.

Johnston steps me through me how the centre-barrels of our aging F/A-18 Hornet fleet are leading to a higher rate of unplanned maintenance, and why the katabatic winds of north-west Australia necessitate a turbo-fan-jet-powered solution for unmanned maritime surveillance. Kelly explains how composite material technology has a role in the global supply chain of the Joint Strike Fighter, an essential project because 'the future battlespace is going to be characterised by a a need to dominate the electro-magnetic spectrum'.

Both men are enthusiastic about the Joint Strike Fighter and the need for future air superiority for Australia. Neither is naive about the JSF delivery schedule or cost. Both underline the importance of a future submarine so that Australia can conduct anti-submarine warfare, something they see as Australia's critical contribution to maritime security. Johnston though is scathing of the inefficient sustainment of Australia's current Collins class submarine fleet.

When I ask both to explain Australia's military strategy, they show less conviction. It seems both of Australia's prospective defence ministers have inchoate views on Australia's military strategy now and in the future. However, both agree that no choice needs to be made between Australia's security alliance with America and its economic relationship with China.

Beyond that thought, what emerges from our discussions is a range of loosely connected observations on the big strategic issues that will guide Australia's future national security: the future of the alliance, shifting major power relations in the region, and the threats Australia will face.

To be fair to both men, its late in a wearying election campaign and neither is in an ideal position to discuss military strategy. Johnston, as the shadow defence minister, lacks access to much of the information necessary to understand Australia's strategic environment and military strategy. Kelly, as Minister for Defence Materiel, has had his vision consumed by non-strategic matters. But even still, I'm surprised by the reflexiveness of their answers when we discuss military strategy.

Tomorrow, what the prospective ministers think about strategy.

Hide
Comments
Election Interpreter 2013

The most important line in the Coalition's defence policy document, released this morning, comes on p.4: 'the bottom line is that our military forces should always be at least as capable as they were when the Howard government left office'.

Amid a blizzard of aspirational statements on defence policy from both sides, this is the most important for a Coalition government. Almost everything Tony Abbott knows about defence he learned from John Howard. Howard's successful management of the East Timor crisis, military strategy for a muscular expeditionary force, and rebuilding of a hollow army resonate in current coalition defence policy. Likewise, the possibility of being caught out by a strategic shock in the international system is engraved in the minds of both Abbott and his presumptive defence minister David Johnston.

But a number of things have changed since the Howard era, and defence will be a tougher portfolio in the years ahead than this document envisages.

For a start, the strong defence funding of the Howard years is unlikely to be realistic for Australia's next government. Tony Abbott has committed the Coalition to spend 2% of GDP on defence within a decade – effectively a meaningless commitment for the forward budget estimates, though a nice sounding target nonetheless. Achieving that level of funding, at the expense of other areas of the Commonwealth budget, would require the investment of serious political capital. The Grattan Institute projects that health costs alone will account for an additional 2% of GDP within the decade, and mining revenue this decade will look a lot different to that of the last.

Read More

Despite aspiring to increase defence spending, the Coalition's policy walks back on a commitment made last April to spend an additional $1.5 billion on maritime surveillance (see Global Hawk drone above).

The likelihood is that a Coalition government would spend little more on defence in the first year than Labor. The few new defence initiatives announced in this policy, such as the $113 million restoration of the well-regarded ADF gap year, will be absorbed into the existing budget.

The Coalition has also committed to find further waste within defence which it can redirect towards military capability. But this is the second thing that has changed since the Howard era of defence. Increased civilianisation, the strategic reform program and the 40 years of efficiency reviews, have found all the quick wins on defence efficiency. There will always be a degree of waste and inefficiency in a Department that employs 100,000 people and most years isn't required to prove its level of capability by fighting in a conflict. Another efficiency review will find some small savings, but saving any serious amount of money from the defence budget now requires foreclosing on military capabilities or fundamentally altering force posture and structure.

Yes, the Defence Department has become more bureaucratic and the news that the Coalition will appoint a high profile team to undertake a first-principles review is welcome. But for the last 20 years Australian voters have heard promises to make the Defence Department more efficient, and it remains to be seen what unique ingredient will allow the Coalition's reform team to be successful.

The major difference from the Howard era is Australia's defence and strategic environment. During the Howard era, Australia assumed a defence edge over other militaries in the region by virtue of access to advanced defence technology and the 13th largest global defence budget. But growing access to disruptive defence technology, and growing economic power in Asia, is causing relative decline in Australia's military capability. As a 2008 Treasury note made clear, 'If both we and other countries were to maintain military spending as a constant share of GDP, other countries' higher growth rates would lead their military capability to grow more rapidly than our own'.  For things to say the same, Australia must increase the amount of money government outlays on the Australian Defence Force. Additionally, after a decade of operations overseas, much of Australia's military equipment is more run down than it was when the Howard government left office.

Most security experts believe Australia's strategic environment is growing more complex and less favourable, although nowhere in this document is there a judgement on that, or indeed why Australia needs a modernised defence force. The Coalition has promised to publish 'an objective replacement Defence White Paper' within 18 months if elected. As has been suggested, this should include an independent component, in a similar process to the US Quadrennial Defense Review. But to resolve all the tensions in Australia's defence policy, this plan will need to be more radical and expensive than this morning's announcement.

A new feature in this Coalition document is the mention of concern about 'growing American perceptions that Labor is freeloading on the United States for Australia's defence'. This is standard fare for defence policy in Australian elections; conservative parties often claim natural ownership of the Anzus alliance. But an open-ended commitment to deepen the alliance without a clear view of either the path or the possible implications of such a decision, is bad policy.

Rather than looking to the US to be told what part we will play in the alliance, there has never been a better time for an active ally to chart a course for its own contributions to the alliance as well as the trajectory for the US rebalance to Asia.

Finally, whereas the military of the Howard era was tactical, Australia's future military needs to be strategic. The problems unearthed by the East Timor deployment were largely tactical ones and were resolved within relatively short space of time. Deployments over the last decade have effectively been tactical in nature, small contributions to wars in which our ally set the strategy. But the systems required for future warfare are strategic, and the defence choices we must make are strategic too. A reliance on tactical fixes and thinking will no longer suffice.

There are four central questions for Australia's future national security which this policy should have answered. Besides a judgement on Australia's strategic environment and how much a Coalition government is realistically able to spend on defence in the next parliamentary term, two deeper questions remain: what sort of military options would a future prime minister Abbott want from the Australian Defence Force? And what is the Coalition's military strategy to insure Australia against a less than rosy Asian century?

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Official US Navy Imagery.

Hide
Comments
Election Interpreter 2013

This morning at the Lowy Institute we heard Kevin Rudd's vision of Australia's strategic situation, national security, and Australia's interconnected economy. I'll leave analysis of what he had to say on the Syrian situation to my colleagues, but suffice to say Rudd has a better grasp of international security dynamics than almost anyone else in the parliament. Let me assess the one policy announcement in his speech: establishing the Future Navy Taskforce.

The Prime Minister committed to establishing a Taskforce consisting of the Secretary of Defence, the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Navy as an ex-officio member. Within 24 months, this task force would give advice on implementing force posture recommendations that 'offer operational advantages, advanced capabilities and sustainment benefits' to Navy. This would include 'moving some or all of Fleet Base East to Perth or Brisbane, and upgrading naval facilities in Darwin, Cairns, and Townsville'.

Mr Rudd outlined his priorities for force posture, priorities which will shape the deliberations of this task force. It is a force posture that supports ADF operations in Australia's northern approaches, humanitarian assistance and stabilisation operations in our neighbourhood, and enhanced force posture measures pursued with the US military. In short, Rudd wants a defence force better postured to look north and west.

Certainly I'd agree that our strategic interests are increasingly to the north and west. But I disagree that we need to uproot the entire Navy to secure them, and Rudd's plan to fundamentally transform our naval posture would imperil other efforts underway to rebuild Navy. More importantly, we are already struggling to fund our defence budget to the level both Rudd and his Defence Minister Stephen Smith would like, and we're also struggling to fund even modest infrastructure upgrades called for to enhance US force posture arrangements.

Read More

The ADF Force Posture Review did suggest that a second naval base on the east coast of Australia would be a useful addition, but the 2013 Defence White Paper concluded that of more immediate concern was the lack of infrastructure to permit the loading of naval munitions and fueling of Navy's fleet. The White Paper concluded that a second naval base was not an immediate option to be pursued.

Rudd's fundamental argument for why we would relocate Navy is to enable ships, particularly Australia's new amphibious assault vessels, to be closer to the Army units they would embark and presumably closer to the trouble spots we would deploy them to. That makes sense. Positioning the amphibs in Queensland would allow them to respond to a crisis 24 hours faster than if there were based in Sydney. But the sheer scale of upheaval required to move Navy's bases, as well as the cost, would outweigh this benefit.

Sydney's Garden Island has the only dry dock in Australia capable of servicing all of Australia's new ships, sustains a defence industry of over 8000 technicians and experts, and adds $608 million to the NSW economy every year. The ADF Force Posture Review conservatively estimated the cost to defence of establishing new base facilities on the east coast at $6-9 billion. The true cost would be much higher. Large tracts of defence industry would need to be relocated to Brisbane, a city already in the midst of a boom. Defence would need to build new housing, garrison support facilities would need to be recast, IT infrastructure connected, and a range of other services rejigged. Strategic naval communications facilities at Garden Island Sydney would need to be replicated.

It's unlikely that this would cost less than $10 billion and take less than a decade. The Hawke Review concluded that a move to an existing port facility would take until at least 2025.

In the meantime, Navy is trying to rebuild its engineering capability, sustain an anaemic fleet of submarines, commission two entirely new classes of ships, make decisions on a future submarine, and fundamentally reconsider its maritime strategy. And it's doing that with a defence budget funded 25% below the level the Defence Minister would prefer.

The Prime Minister was asked to commit to a 2% GDP spend on defence, and replied that his policy was to sustain defence spending at 2%. That overstates his Government's current defence spending by approximately $8 billion.

I asked the Prime Minister if he though Navy could manage all of its problems and move house at the same time. He replied that it was the responsibility of government to think big, make the big calls, and think about the problems twenty years down the road. That's inspirational stuff, but government also needs to address the defence problems of here and now. We are underfunding the current defence plan by $33 billion and neither side of politics has an answer for that. Amid such weak defence policy, shifting the Navy north is a very big call indeed.

Photo by Flickr user US Department of Defense Current Photos.

Hide
Comments

Cameron Stewart writes in The Australian today about the announcement by the US Chief of Naval Operations (from his Navigation Plan 2014-2018) that he aims to 'provide amphibious lift for US marines operating out of Australia by establishing a fifth amphibious readiness group in the Pacific by financial year 2018'.

The US Navy already has one amphibious ready group (ARG) and a carrier strike group based in Japan with the 7th Fleet. But an additional ARG in our region would allow better crisis response in the maritime crossroads of South East Asia, and possibly into the eastern Indian Ocean. The US Marine Corps plans to build a rotational presence for a full Marine Air Ground Task Force (a force of 2500 Marines with armoured vehicles and aircraft) in Darwin in the coming years. It makes a lot of sense that it would need amphibious vessels with which to deploy.

There are three possibilities for where these vessels could come from. The first option is that the US could build additional amphibious assault ships like the soon-to-be commissioned USS America, but at US$3.6 billion per ship this seems unlikely during sequestration.The second option would be to relocate ships to the Pacific from an existing homeport on the US east coast, but domestic political pressures make this unlikely; just moving an ARG from Virginia to Florida has been a vexed task.

The third option, and the most likely, is that the US Navy will experiment with new and cheaper amphibious ships for its new Pacific ARG.

Read More

In a speech in Singapore in May this year, Admiral Greenert pointed to a mix of Littoral Combat Ships, Joint High Speed Vessels (pictured), and a newer amphibious ship concept termed the 'Afloat Forward Staging Base' which is 'something that's perhaps better suited for this region, and its balance and capabilities that we bring to this region'. These US Marine Corps briefing slides show current thinking about how the new concept might work.

Admiral Greenert makes clear that, besides four Singapore-based littoral combat ships, which could form part of the ARG, the US Navy is looking to bring another three to the region by 2020. They will be joined by three Joint High Speed Vessels and a new experimental ship called the USNS Montford Point which will be based in Guam 'in a few years'. This last ship is essentially a modified commercial oil tanker from which landing craft and helicopters can operate. The key advantage of using this ship? Cost. About 20-25% of the expense of building a more conventional amphibious assault ship like USS America.

So where will this new ARG be based? Admiral Greenert addressed this during a CSIS conference on the future of maritime forces in July:

And that will expand itself until we have a MEU-size force operating out of Darwin, deployed out of Darwin, where we will have an ARG MEU-sized capability by the end of this decade.

But though the ARG may have a forward presence in Darwin, there would be a lot of problems associated with basing US amphibious ships in Darwin Harbour permanently, and it is more likely that the new ARG will operate primarily from Guam. Certainly current construction works on Guam envisage the regular presence of an ARG.

US and Australian political leaders are still talking about 'places' rather than bases for the US Marine Corps in Darwin. The US Marine Corps, however, is further out in front, referring to future 'bases' in Australia for the III Marine Expeditionary Force in this recent document (p.13). But during the election campaign, the Australian Defence Department is playing it safe. Its comment on this morning's story: 'The positioning of US Navy assets is a matter for the US government.'

Hide
Comments
Election Interpreter 2013

Short posts from Lowy Institute experts on what they regard as the most important international policy issue of this campaign. See the Election Interpreter 2013 archive for the whole series.

When it does emerge as a campaign issue, both parties compete to show who has more ownership of Australia's special alliance with the US. But in this campaign, a more detailed and critical discussion of the changing dynamics of that alliance will be important.

Two years since President Obama announced the deployment of US Marines to Darwin, Australian and US negotiators are still haggling over the funding for supporting infrastructure in northern Australia. As the Lowy Poll shows, Australian views on supporting US military action in Asia are evolving. A more substantive public discussion on the alliance is needed, and the time to have that discussion is not on the eve of a security crisis.

Australia should maintain its commitment to the immensely important ANZUS alliance, but our politicians should not shirk a more critical discussion of how that alliance works, and how the best interests of both Australia and the US should be observed.

Comments
10 of 11 This post is part of a debate on The PNG Solution

There must be days when the Chief of the Defence Force and Secretary of Defence pine for the creation of an Australian Coast Guard, just so they can prise the Australian Defence Force away from the toxic debate on Australia's asylum seeker policy. Labor's PNG solution will rely on the ADF to expand refugee operations on Manus Island and will tie up the Navy's only operational amphibious ship for some time. The Coalition's plan, Operation Sovereign Borders, will see one of the ADF's six already busy three-star officers lead a distinctly military-themed policy response.

But for all the centrality of the ADF in this debate, we know little about the operational details of the military's role in border protection, known as Operation Resolute. In defence budgets and white papers of the past decade there's only scant reference to the military's contribution to interdicting asylum seekers who come by boat. Over the past five years the government has supplemented the defence budget by approximately $10 million per year to cover the additional costs incurred from running Operation Resolute. In 2011 parliament asked Defence to estimate the full cost of Operation Resolute and was told: 'Defence does not estimate the full cost of operations as this would not enhance budget processes'.

So in the absence of official figures, in this post I present my best estimate of the true cost of the military dimension of Australia's asylum seeker policy.

I've costed Op Resolute based on the force structure and operational tempo outlined in the ADF Force Posture Review. This data shows that for the year starting October 2010, Defence assigned the following military assets to Op Resolute:

Read More
  • 3 x RAAF AP-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft (2520 hours).
  • 7 x Navy Armidale Patrol boats (2707 days).
  • 3 x Army Regional Force Surveillance Units (RFSU; 208 patrol days).
  • Navy Landing Craft Heavy (61 days).
  • Navy Landing Craft Medium (106 days).
  • RAAF C-130 Hercules (two sorties).
  • RAN Transit Security Element (36 personnel for 244 days).
  • Embarked communications specialists (272 days).

From other information presented to parliament we know that half the current patrol boat force (Armidale class patrol boat pictured above) is permanently assigned to Op Resolute and an additional two boats can be called on for surge tasking. A major fleet unit (normally one of the five operational ANZAC frigates) is constantly assigned as back-up for more complicated transit tasks. And in 2011, the Navy's Leeuwin class hydrographic ships spent 80.5% of their 317 days at sea on Op Resolute tasking. I've taken cost data for naval vessels from this information provided by Defence, and operating costs for RAAF assets are derived from ASPI's Cost of Defence figures.

We know that the 78 Defence staff at HQ Northcom spend an average of 67.5% of their time on Operation Resolute, and 20 Defence staff seconded to Border Protection Command work on Op Resolute full time. I've assumed each RFSU patrol day involves six patrolling personnel and five supporting HQ personnel and that each embarked communications team has five personnel. I haven't accounted for personnel working on Op Resolute issues elsewhere – for example in DIO, Defence Legal, or HQJOC. I haven't accounted for one-off deployments such as the deployment of the RAAF's Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron to activate the airbase at RAAF Learmonth in December 2008, or for domestic travel positioning defence staff for their Op Resolute deployments.

That last cost could be substantial. RAAF personnel assigned to support Op Resolute conduct two-week deployments to RAAF Darwin and RAAF Learmonth from their home base in South Australia. In 2012, there were more than 2000 (presumably commercial) flight movements for RAAF personnel assigned to Op Resolute (see the lift-out in the RAAF News of 17th September 2012). In many cases these personnel are accommodated in Darwin hotels during their deployments.

So what does Operation Resolute actually cost Defence? My estimate, based on putting together this tricky data, is that it's at least $262 million per year. Given Customs is budgeting $342 million for its own civil maritime surveillance and response operations this year, my estimate is likely to be conservative. But it is clear that Defence is absorbing at least a quarter of a billion dollars annually to run Operation Resolute.

You could argue that Defence assets would be conducting border protection tasking anyway, regardless of Australia's policy approach to stopping the boats. But every frigate loitering off Christmas Island is one not conducting counter-piracy patrolling in the Indian Ocean or regional engagement visits in South East Asia.

Operation Resolute has been running for seven years. It is a major military campaign, yet because of its extreme political sensitivity it has never been assessed as a military campaign. There are more detailed questions to be answered about what running this operation has truly cost the Australian Defence Force.

Photo courtesy of the Defence Department.

Hide
Comments

Earlier this year I made a submission and gave evidence to the annual review of Defence activities conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. In essence, I argued that parliamentary oversight of the Department of Defence needed to be strengthened by both improving the transparency of Defence reporting to parliament and deepening the engagement of parliamentarians with defence issues.

Last week the committee tabled its report in parliament, and happily agreed with the majority of my evidence. Two of its four main recommendations were drawn from my submission.

The first recommendation directs Defence to improve its public reporting on performance by developing a more precise performance reporting methodology than the current, and ridiculous, 'three tick reporting' it uses. The Committee recommended that future Defence annual reports detail specific performance targets, how performance is assessed in relation to these targets, and (if necessary) the specific reason why targets were not achieved. It suggests the Department undergo periodic review by independent experts in a process similar to the Quadrennial Defence Review used by the US military.

It also directs Defence to include more reporting on operational readiness in its public annual report. This point is particularly important.

Read More

As my submission indicated, Navy's amphibious fleet recorded two ticks for performance during 2010-2011, meaning 'targets mostly met and any issues are being managed'. But two of the three ships had actually been put on an extensive operational pause following a fire, and during a large part of that period Navy had no amphibious capability at all. I outlined how our allies are able to offer more detailed public reporting on readiness without compromising operational security.

Defence's response rather blandly stated that readiness details were sensitive and should remain classified, and that its annual reporting complies with governmental guidelines. 

The parliamentary committee agreed with me that Defence annual reporting 'does not provide sufficient detail on performance or on the readiness of the ADF', agreed that Defence reporting is overly optimistic, and shared my concerns about the 'three tick' system Defence uses to assess its own performance.

The second recommendation concerned the ADF Parliamentary Program, a highly successful initiative that has allowed 34% of the current parliament to gain experience in placements with the Australian Defence Force. I argued that the tactical emphasis of this program needed to be broadened to include exposure to more strategic defence issues. The committee has recommended that the program be extended into other areas, including the Department of Defence's strategic policy areas and the Defence Materiel Organisation. At this point I should apologise to the 44th parliament — instead of jet rides at RAAF Williamtown you might be headed across the lake to study spread sheets at DMO. But this is important if we are to increase knowledge of strategic defence issues amongst parliamentarians.

Finally, I had asked the Committee to recommend defence 'review the effectiveness of its operations and strategy in East Timor, the Solomon Islands, Iraq, and Afghanistan'. In response, Defence outlined that it conducts regular campaign assessments in Headquarters Joint Operations Command, including a quarterly assessment of Operation Slipper (ADF operations in Afghanistan) but that this is 'primarily focused on Uruzgan province'.

In response to my call for a public review of operations and strategy, Defence argued 'public reviews such as those recommended would carry the risk of providing potential adversaries with information of the ADF's strengths and weaknesses without necessarily providing further information of value', and pointed to the Defence Minister's updates to parliament on Afghanistan. But a quarterly update is not the same as a strategic review, and the operational security excuse looks tired and implausible. 

Australia is now the only member of the five-eyes community not to have conducted a public review of operations and strategy in Afghanistan. 

We've spent billions of dollars on military operations in the past decade, lost over 40 military personnel and had hundreds more wounded. Surely it's important to review whether we could have done better. The committee chose not to recommend defence review its operations and strategy of the past decade. Here's hoping the next parliament might reconsider that.

Image courtesy of Reuters.
Hide
Comments

US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was in full reassurance mode at the Shangri-La Dialogue over the weekend. Not so US congressman Randy Forbes in an interview on the rebalance to the Asia Pacific yesterday. Forbes is the vocal Seapower and Projection Forces Chair of the House Armed Services Committee and is well positioned to understand precisely the impact sequestration is having on the US military presence in the Asia Pacific.

In a frank interview, Rep Forbes concludes that the US...

...will not be able to achieve a significant military rebalance to the Asia-Pacific now...Resourcing our long-standing Asia-Pacific strategy in a manner that continues to ensure a favourable balance of power to the rules-based order is a difficult task, especially given the severe defence budget reductions under sequestration. These cuts have hobbled the military’s ability to conduct long-term planning, further complicating the Asia-Pacific.

Rep Forbes notes that what will endure is the development of the Joint Operational Access Concept. You might remember that as the artist formerly known as 'AirSea Battle', and in fact the Pentagon office set up to manage it still bears this name.

AirSea Battle makes the rebalance a much more difficult sell for US diplomats in the region who argue that it is not a policy for containment of China. If the only tangible sign of the rebalance is an operational concept which calls for massive military action against an adversarial China, then the US rebalance looks a lot like containment.

Read More

Forbes offers some direct thoughts on the value of US-China military-to-military engagement, warning that 'too often I believe we allow ourselves to think that these exercises in themselves are net positives.' But he does offer clear support for Chinese involvement in RIMPAC exercises next year.

Conclusions aside, when was the last time you saw an Australian politician give such a frank and detailed interview on questions of military strategy? In his recent paper Planning the Unthinkable War: AirSea Battle and its Implications for Australia, Ben Schreer suggests that the Australian government should seek to demystify the concept of AirSea Battle and encourage our ally to provide an overarching grand-strategic context for it. That's good advice.

Photo by Flickr user The California National Guard.

Hide
Comments
Loading...