Yes I read that earlier today and he raises some very interesting points. I think that NZ, South Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan and Japan need to take serious note as well.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Trump has also demanded NATO allies to raise their Defence spending to 4% to match the US, how long before he demands the same from his West Pacific Allies? Australia is matching the NATO target of 2% by 2024 but will Trump demand more?
Interesting perspective from Peter Jennings at ASPI.
Trump means we need a ‘Plan B’ for Defence | Australian Strategic Policy Institute | ASPI
Not completely sure some of it is realistic given timelines (e.g. I would question how long it would take to stand up a truly indigenous nuclear capability for instance, are long range bomber aircraft really what we would be looking for etc).
But worth the read - it is mid-length.
Regards,
Massive
t68
Well-Known Member
I agree with a majority of what was said but have some reservations.
1) agree extra funding should be in place but should float between 2/2.5% pending equipment needs.
2) Agree a regional security pact with core member states.
3) I believe we are already doing this
4) Agree more joint patrols with the Pacfic nations via both air and sea ( expand coast watch patrols ?)
5) Agree we need nuclear power industry (wind/solar cannot provide base load) I belive it’s too late for nuclear submarines for the RAN after the shortfin program
6) Agree we need long range cruise missiles
7) Agree for the need for a strategic bomber but B21 is not within budget and no medium bomber on the horizon
8) isn’t this what they do? Defence Science and Technology
Welcome to DST Group - Defence Science and Technology Group
9) Agree the ADF as a whole needs to increase in size
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
If this proposed Trump visit in November goes ahead thats when we may cop a Broadside similar to what the NATO Countries copped.
I wouldn't be too confident. He changes his mind more than you or I have hot beverages.
If the strategic environment plays out as suggested I would agree, though with the following refinements:
1. The navy plan would remain largely as is, though with an acceleration of the frigate & sub programs where possible
2. Airforce would increase in size, with additional F-35 and P-8 the focus
3. Army would see the largest expansion with a focus on more armoured force and enablers
Regards,
Massive
Thanks Massive
I read this the other day.
Peter Jennings writes well, but I'm never quite sure if the words are his true sentiments or food for thought to foster interest in ASPI.
Either way it is an important debate.
The increase in defence spending may prove difficult with an electorate not in tune with the geopolitical changes taking place within the region.
Certainly believe some independent and self reliant increased defence posture is needed.
The starting point will be to culturally accept this position and then to act upon it.
As to how much to spend and on what, well that's the question.
Suggest building on our ability to punch at a distance suits our geography
Thanks S
Last edited:
Personally I don’t think there is any justification for an enduring defence expenditure above 2%. Even now, the threat just isn’t there. However, because we are behind the 8-ball in so many areas, there may be justification for a temporary injenction of funds above that amount, until the appropriate capability baseline is reached. I don’t there will he much resistance from the electorate - we are already seeing a pretty massive injection of funds to get back to 2%, and the electorate has so far given that a stiff ignoring.
A significant problem to be overcome, however, is that there is just so much extra money that can actually be absorbed quickly. I can only speak from an army POV, but one key reason new capabilities are being introduced slowly is that there are just not enough people to run the programs simultaneously to bring them in any quicker. Injection funds quicker than it can be absorbed just risks it being squandered, with the predictable backlash being the result.
As to what we should be spending our money on if there is extra cash, I think we need to aim for quick wins. Most of the large programs won’t see significant capability being delivered for a long time, so looking at what can be achieved in the interim would be an obvious goal. I would aim to increase our operational-ranged strike options, and other related capabilities, as they ar the capabilities that will make a potential enemy sit up and take notice. A long range cruise missile to be integrated on submarines, ships and aircraft (including P8) would be a good start, as would a new anti ship missile, preferably LRASM, even if it was only a small number. SM6 for the surface ships, deployable long range rockets/missile/GBAD systems for the army, introduce an armed MALE UAS (which is well overdue) etc etc.
A significant problem to be overcome, however, is that there is just so much extra money that can actually be absorbed quickly. I can only speak from an army POV, but one key reason new capabilities are being introduced slowly is that there are just not enough people to run the programs simultaneously to bring them in any quicker. Injection funds quicker than it can be absorbed just risks it being squandered, with the predictable backlash being the result.
As to what we should be spending our money on if there is extra cash, I think we need to aim for quick wins. Most of the large programs won’t see significant capability being delivered for a long time, so looking at what can be achieved in the interim would be an obvious goal. I would aim to increase our operational-ranged strike options, and other related capabilities, as they ar the capabilities that will make a potential enemy sit up and take notice. A long range cruise missile to be integrated on submarines, ships and aircraft (including P8) would be a good start, as would a new anti ship missile, preferably LRASM, even if it was only a small number. SM6 for the surface ships, deployable long range rockets/missile/GBAD systems for the army, introduce an armed MALE UAS (which is well overdue) etc etc.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would have used the up and down toilet seat analogy during a Univerisity fraternity party. As for a Trump visit in November, his posture could be determined by the November midterm elections, the outcome pretty much a mystery at this point.
Is this an attempt by Trump to get the rest of the world to buy more American weaponry? If so, can we increase our military funding without buying from the US? If so, we could join with GB and Germany etc in funding an alternative to the Tornado, which would be a good replacement for the F111..
King Wally
Active Member
I can't see us lifting spending above 2% without a shooting war breaking out. We have a serious demographic crisis looming that I don't think we've budgeted for. I got my Tax Return "how government spends my tax dollar" letter the other day and the percentage of old age pension, disability pension and general health care expenses (related to an aging population) is startling. The media hyped "dole bludgers" barley rank a show in the gov expenses in comparison. I think in 10 years time we are going to have to really fight to keep our 2% defence commitment where it is sadly. Perhaps I'm just alarmist but I see trouble coming.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
John if you are not aware of it the 2018 APEC Summit is in Port Moresby in November so your Bestie Justin Tredeau will be in this neck of the Woods as well.
Jeez that's fightin' talk
Agree strongly with this. I'd categorise a flood of money as the "School Hall" option, with too much wastage on duplication and too little on understanding what the outcome should be. Having spent a profitable year fixing poorly installed new network infrastructure in school halls built adjacent to recently (properly) equipped halls I'm not too sanguine that money can be thrown at just any problem
oldsig
It wouldn't be so bad if the money was set aside and / or ring fenced until the outcomes and capabilities had been sorted. However that would be to logical for pollies and Treasury would have conniptions about that money sitting there and them not being able to get their grubby fingers on it.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I doubt it, given how the POTUS has slammed Boeing and worked to introduce tariffs on certain raw and processed materials. As an example, Coca-Cola has announced that it will raise it's prices as a result of a cost increase for aluminium used to make cans for soda/soft drinks.\
One of the other things is that many of the traditional US allies, countries which usually would look at and purchase some US gear, have been slammed by the current administration.
Me being me, I would prefer Australia to stick with weaponry that is either sourced from, or in use by the US where possible. By reasoning behind this is that if a weapon is in US service, then there is little fear of developmental issues impacting serviceability, availability, or more expensive/delayed in service dates.
It is one thing if Australia opts to partner with another nation or consortium of nations to fund or co-develop a new weapon system (JSM and NSM come to mind as examples), but it is quite a different story if Australia purchases a weapons system which is 'sold' as a completed system when in fact it is still under development. Unfortunately there are a number of Euro examples which come to mind.
Two of the other advantages of purchasing US-sourced weapons systems is that Australia (or another purchasing nation) can potentially tap into US upgrade programmes for the weapon system, and perhaps more importantly tap into US support systems and stockpiles.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
That's a good thing, not being in Canada minimizes the damage he can do here. APEC, like the G7 meeting, the NATO meeting, the CETA meeting last year, and endless NAFTA meetings are just opportunities for junior to entertain his entourage with foreign visits. Hopefully he doesn't embarrass Canada like he did during his visit to India.
John it could be deleterious to his health if he insults some of the tribes in PNG. They tend to take such things very seriously.