Under the Howard government, Australia made a number of defense purchases to upgrade a military that has been in heavy use and in need of replacements. Of the projects that made a lot of sense to us included the Air Defense destroyers, the LHDs, and new Abrams tanks, all of which are important warfighter capabilities that fit very well within the trends of globalization and expeditionary forces. We were never very impressed with the Super Seasprite deal, the F/A-18 Hornet purchase, nor did we ever fully understand the thinking behind purchasing the F-35A, which would not be capable of utilization on the new LHDs.The Rudd government has decided that some of this doesn't make sense, and it appears they aren't happy with the direction of defense, or defense spending, and some major changes are in the works for Australia's military. The news starts with a study.
Work will begin this week on the 2008 defence white paper, the biggest review of Australia's defence priorities since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US. It will reassess the Howard government's policy of spending $50billion to build a defence force that fits seamlessly into the US military machine.
In many ways this is smart, the Howard government was all over the map with its priorities, and did a very poor job of delivering a public intellectual basis for expensive programs. The purchase of the F/A-18s is an excellent example, Eric has blogged the history for awhile and the Howard approach consistently begged the question, where is the strategy?
We observe this report uses the phrase "white elephant" a lot. Apparently it escaped the Howard government that if you cannot match defense funding with purpose, your program can be said to be lacking of purpose.
THE Federal Government will launch a major cost cutting assault on multi-billion dollar defence projects established by the Howard government, with the controversial $6.6billion Super Hornet jet fighters first in its sights.
Other defence white elephants in the Government's target include the Abrams tank, three massively expensive air warfare destroyers, two huge amphibious carrier ships, dud Seasprite helicopters, unnecessary flying drones and $16billion worth of undeveloped F-35 joint strike fighters.
If I was a citizen of Australia, I'd be a little concerned when almost every major defense program is labeled a white elephant. We note that only the Collins class and Collins class replacement are not mentioned. Is every single program actually a white elephant, is that really the world we live in where a nation should in fact invest in no new defense programs? I'm not sure the phrase white elephant applies, but in a nation loaded with resources in a region of increasing competition for resources, I think the word "Ivory Tower" best describes the white elephant approach to defense. Rather than a military "that fits seamlessly into the US military machine" this article is painting an ever scarier picture, because it sounds a lot like a plan for Australia to be as dependent as possible upon the United States for defense in the future. There has to be a wise approach somewhere in the middle.That isn't to suggest there shouldn't be a review, or cuts, in fact we believe both should be done. From our perspective, Air Defense destroyers are hardly white elephants for an island nation. Without the ability to defend shipping, you better be ready and willing to produce everything, without any imports, because only with the proposed Air Defense destroyers will Australia have the capability to defend its sea lanes. ANZACs and Adelaide frigates cannot fill that role in the Pacific, too many contenders.
The LHD is also very important, in fact we would suggest one of the most important military programs for Australia. One of the pillars of Australia's defense lies on its option for intervention in the South Pacific. Without that capability, Australia eliminates that pillar of regional defense, and is just begging for other powers to assume that role. The power most likely to assume that role in the region, in protection of its own interests, is China. I have a hard time believing the sacrifice of that pillar of defense to China is in the best interest of Australia, but that is the road being paved by the elimination of the LHDs. The Abrams tanks, which can be carried on the LHDs, is an important part of that defense strategy.
As for the aircraft purchases and frigate modernization, I believe this is something for the Rudd government to take a serious look at. The Super Seasprites are a disaster, Howard lacked the guts to call a spade a spade and do what is required. Rudd should take action there. If the modernized frigates can't deploy to forward theaters, they aren't of any use. The replacements for the F-111s also raises questions, and is tied directly to the F-35A purchase. The problem is two fold, first what is the strategic purpose of ground based aircraft, and two what considerations are required within the scope of the strategic purchase of future aircraft for expeditionary deployment. The Howard government never answered those questions, and it is unclear if the Rudd government is even asking those questions. Until strategic purpose is identified, it is premature to believe any platform is right for Australia, which is why the cross-hairs are on the aircraft purchases.
This will be interesting to observe unfold. Will Australia go the way of Europe, basically rely on the US for its defense, and if so, what does that mean for the US? The lack of defense spending in Europe is creating a greater reliance on the US for defense, will we have to do the same for Australia in the future? This is why a rising India is so appealing to many in the US, it is a lot easier to partner with nations, specifically democracy's. that take their national defense and regional security responsibilities seriously.
