‘The last 400 metres’
Neil James,executive director of the Australia Defence Association,says the argument against tanks disregards “the last 400 metres” of a battle.
“It’s in that last 400 metres that most of the casualties occur,” James says. “And even in what they call empty battlefields – battlefields with not many people in them because of modern technology – you’ve still got that problem that people aren’t bulletproof.
“And all of these armchair theorists who suggest that tanks are outdated,that the army doesn’t need armoured vehicles and it’s going to be too heavy,I’d love to see some of them walk that last 400 metres.”
James says you only have to mention the term “balanced force” to some academics and “they go absolutely berserk because they misunderstand it”. He says these people never suggest the air force doesn’t need jet fighters or the navy doesn’t need submarines.
“But there’s a school of thought,particularly among some of the strategy academics,that all the wars are just going to involve the navy and the air force,and all you need for the army is some very lightly equipped paramilitary field gendarmerie. It’s an absolutely nonsense argument,and it will end up with a lot of really dead Diggers.
“But we can’t buy everything,so you’ve got to make painful choices. The problem is the army,generally speaking,is the victim of the nation’s painful choices,not the other two services.”
Long-range missiles and American troops
Considering the 10-year warning time is now gone,and the nation’s new submarines and frigates are more than a decade away,Defence is now pursuing the acquisition of long-range missiles,including ones that can be fired from the land.
These weapons – including anti-ship missiles,a long-range rocket system and surface-to-air missile systems – would be integral in stopping Chinese vessels from getting through the archipelago to our north in the event of an attack.
Today,Australia’s long-range capabilities lie largely with the air force,but even these are systems that can fire from only about 370 kilometres away;in other words,Australia is flat out sending a missile into the South Pacific,let alone into east Asia.
Meanwhile,China now has missiles that could hit northern Australia from its bases in the South China Sea.
Australia last yearcommitted to acquiring precision-guided missiles for its land forces. The missiles are capable of hitting targets from more than 400 kilometres.
Dutton says the acquisition of these missiles is an “absolute priority” and Australia is “working with the United States and with industry partners in that endeavour”.
“There are issues around IP and export bans ... because the United States finds itself at capacity within their own system of production,” he says. “So it’s important for us to develop that sovereign capability and manufacturing capacity.
“Obviously,thetechnological developments have advanced to an unprecedented point compared to the Cold War,and that means missile technology can fire on Australia almost to any part of the country in a way that it wasn’t able to in the 1960s,or even in the early 2000s.”
The presence of Australian troops is also likely to be boosted in the coming years with more US soldiers in the top end.
Australia is making an $8 billion investment across the north of the country upgrading its bases,and some of this will be to accommodate Americans.
In addition to the rotational deployment of US Marines through Darwin for training purposes,American forces are likely to commit to a more permanent basing of their troops in Australia in the years ahead.
Dutton says:“I think you’ll see a greater engagement in the region,and not just from the United States – the United Kingdom will have more port visits,and I think there will be more from the Indians,more from Japan.”
Are we spending enough?
There are about 29,000 permanent soldiers in the army and 20,000 reserves. This doesn’t compare well with other countries in the region. Singapore has 45,000 active personnel and 240,000 reserve personnel;Indonesia has about 300,000 active soldiers;China has almost a million.
As Australia’s population and economy continue to shrink compared with the rest of Asia,this gap will only get bigger unless we invest more in the military.
This may mean Australia will have to spend considerably more than the $44.6 billion – or 2.1 per cent of gross domestic product – it spent last year on the defence budget.
While the total amount may seem like a lot,it is less than some comparable countries on a per capita basis.
Loading
Per person,Australia spends $1469. In comparison,Israel spends $3415 per person and Singapore $2526.
Then there’s the question of whether Australia gets value for money from that outlay.
At a total of $15 billion,Singapore’s defence budget is a third of Australia’s. Yet Singapore boasts a bigger army,100 fourth-generation jet fighters,six small warships and five submarines.
Considering Australia has 44 fifth-generation fighters,24 fourth-generation fighters and six submarines,it doesn’t seem like we get enough.
Israel’s defence budget is two-thirds the size of Australia’s,yet the country has 300 fourth-generation jet fighters and an army with 133,000 soldiers and 380,000 reservists.
France spends $73.09 billion,just shy of 40 per cent more than Australia,but has almost 250 jet fighters,10 nuclear-powered submarines and an army of 117,0000.
Here,the performance of Defence in its major acquisitions must be brought into question.
Late last year,Dutton announced the army wouldditch its fleet of troubled Taipan helicopters a decade earlier than scheduled,and replace them with new Black Hawks from the US. This followed the decision to scrap a $90 billion deal with France for a conventionally powered fleet of submarines,and instead go nuclear withBritain and the US under the AUKUS agreement.
Labor’s defence spokesman, Brendan O’Connor,says that over eight years the Coalition has presided over “many delays and cancellations of very expensive contracts”.
“One of the priorities of a Labor government,if elected,will be to get an immediate briefing on the progress of these very large contracts with a view to expediting them without wasting taxpayers’ money,” he says.
Dutton says the government’s industry partners are now “on notice”.
Loading
“So we’re not going to tolerate significant blowouts in cost and time,” Dutton says.
“And,equally,I’ve been very clear with Defence that they need to have their house in order as well. They have made some mistakes in the past,and we learn from those mistakes,but we’re not going to repeat them.
“There’s a need to acquire capability and in some instances,such as guided weapons,we need to do that sooner than later.”
While Australia is still committed to a balanced force,some things are more pressing than others.
Part two of our series Is Australia Ready For War? will be published on Thursday. It takes a deep look at the Royal Australian Air Force.
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories,analysis and insights.Sign up here.