Chinese fleet on manoeuvres 2024
This month’s essay from the archives was written three years ago, just after Morrison’s announcement of AUKUS – and well before the outbreak of the current Israel-Palestinian War. Things looked pretty grim then with respect to Australia’s defence capabilities.
Since then that situation has only got worse, not better.
Our political class’s preoccupation with the 2025 election meant major parties weren’t (as usual) prepared to risk losing votes by scaring voters with unpleasant truths or their implications. One of those key truths is that Australian taxpayers will have to spend more to defend the Nation. That would have been an unpalatable, if not suicidal, message for any Party to deliver in a ‘cost of living relief’ focused election.
Rather than behave in the national interest as true leaders do, our politicians chased votes by offering little sweeteners such as temporary petrol discounts, future tax reductions equivalent to the price of a cup of coffee a week – and lots of other little somethings for virtually everyone; 2025 was an election of tokenism, not substance. Winning power was the prime objective of all parties and achieving that end justified the employment of any means necessary. Nobody wanted to be the harbinger of bad news. “Shoot the messenger” is a phrase that strongly resonates in political circles. And so the subject of ‘defence’ was yet again pushed into the background .
Over its first three years in office the Albanese Labor Government did nothing to improve the current strength of the ADF. If anything it weakened it by withdrawing funds for existing proposed programmes (such as the purchase of more F-35 fighters) to support long term projects (such as AUKUS ) that won’t be delivered for a decade or two, if at all.
That leaves Australia in the most exposed position it’s been in since the beginning of WW11.
In 1938 Australia spent around 1.6 % of GDP on defence. That rose to 40%+ during the War to fall back to 1.56 % by 2012/13. During this year’s election Labor pledged to lift the current level of 2.0% to 2.3% by 2033/34. That’s not nearly enough to close our widening defence-gap.
World events are moving against Australia
PAX AMERICA
For a start Trump, has repeatedly said he (meaning America) is not prepared to defend nations that do not pay their way. Even the US’ closest allies (principally the nations in NATO and Canada) have been told they won’t be able to keep ripping off America by not paying enough for American protection. Trump regards a 3% of GDP spend as a minimum for ‘allies’ .And when he says that he means 3% now – not in a decade’s time. Trump is not patient man. If he doesn’t immediately get his way he quickly loses interest, becomes bored and moves onto some new venture. His woefully inept handling of the Israel/Palestinian and Russian/ Ukrainian wars amply demonstrate that.
America, under Trump, is a less reliable ally. History, alliances, values and principles mean little to Trump. They’re but theatrical props he uses in deal making, mere playing cards. If they work well and good. If they don’t they are easily discarded because he sees such things of little intrinsic value.
If, for whatever reason ,Trump decided AUKUS no longer put America’s (ie. his) interests first rest assured he’d have no hesitation in walking away from it no matter what treaties have been signed ,no matter what assurances he himself may have made in the past. In his first term Trump boasted his trade agreement with Canada and Mexico (NAFTA) was ‘ the greatest ever’. Within 90 days of is second term he’d destroyed that agreement claiming both nations had been ‘ripping off America for far too long’. This man’s word is not his bond. He is a volatile opportunist.
ABILITY TO DELIVER
Many commentators point out that AUKUS faces many concrete problems that could delay its implementation. Some doubt the programme will ever come to fruition.
Amongst the obstacles cited are,
• The US’ own boat building programme is falling further and further behind schedule. Ditto the UK’s. Delays seem inevitable. The longer these delays the longer China’s window of opportunity will remain open, thereby tempting it to act sooner than later. Too little too late is not sensible defence strategy.
• Delays result in cost blow outs. Australia’s commitment of around $380 billion already stretches the Nation’s finances, limiting our ability to invest in other military capabilities. We risk putting all our eggs in the one basket.
• The programme involves more of Australia than just buying boats. It involves the building of major new infrastructure such as ports, the learning of new skills (handing nuclear reactors) and the recruitment and training of already inadequate submariner-crew numbers. No small tasks in an economy that’s already suffering from acute skill shortages.
THE CHANGING NATURE OF WAR
For a long time Australia has had a weapons procurement programme of buying the ADF the very best. And that sounds fine. In reality it has meant that we have invested in buying relatively small numbers of expensive equipment from overseas, assets that we spend even more time and money on by having them ‘customised’ to meet Australian conditions.
Lessons learnt in the Russian/Ukrainian war question that approach. Military technology has advanced by leaps and bounds in the last couple of decades. Putin expected Kyiv would fall in a few days after his tanks rolled across the border. His bitter disappointment prompted a rethink among amongst warfare-strategists as to how smaller nations can make themselves prickly enough to deter the ambitions of would be predators.
Some of those lessons are highly relevant to Australia. In essence they suggest smaller nations should rebalance their forces toward having a range of more, relatively inexpensive, disposable weapons (such as rockets, missiles and simple drones) in lieu of far fewer ‘major’ capital assets; Australia needs weapons that can be readily made locally in lieu of those that need to be replenished overseas. We need drones and light surface ships, highly portable weapons that add speed and flexibility to manoeuvring and concealment, weapons that are ‘manless’ (smart and sophisticated), intelligent weapons that need fewer support personnel to operate ….and (if possible) some that can reach into the heartland of enemy territory to remind an enemy population of their own vulnerability.
TIME TO STOP RUNNING AWAY FROM REALITY
Of course Australia is aware of all the above learnings. Our politico-defence class has been looking, talking and endlessly debating them for far too long. They’ve dithered, prevaricated and done little, very little, while the capacities we already have rapidly age. That aging process will accelerate as the promises of AI are operationalised by other nations.
Our leaders’ indecisiveness has left Australia in the invidious position of having an ADF that’s no longer fit for purpose and a political class prepared to risk all on a far off , perhaps undeliverable, AUKUS.
Neither of these outcomes is satisfactory. Australia doesn’t deserve to be put at risk for another two decades. It would be negligence not to close the defence gap that yawns in front of us.
FROM THE ARCHIVES
Written September 2022 (before the 2023 Israel/Palestinian War in Gaza)
NAVEL GAZING
Last year two very different types of issues occupied federal government thinking to unprecedented degrees. One was navel gazing. The other was naval gazing.
The first kind of navel gazing was a huge and necessary focus on combating such domestic issues as Covid and (to a lesser extent) the fight for gender equality and the movements to end discrimination. Once near taboo issues (such as paedophilia, sexual harassment, domestic violence, racism) all converged to dominate public debate. Justifiably so. Until we get things right at ‘home’, where we lead our everyday lives, we’ll remain a divided society.
If it hadn’t been for AUKUS few of us would have given much thought to another question vital to all our collective future, namely ‘how well is Australia defended?’ If our democracy is seriously constrained – or snatched away from us by force of arms or economic blockade – all our talk about a fair and equitable society will prove rather fruitless.
In an attempt to get us thinking about our ability to defend ourselves in the ‘outside’ world it would be pointless to compare our military resources with those of China, the US, Russia, the major powers. The answer in these cases is obvious. Rather, I’ve compared our forces with those of another small nation, Israel.
When looking at the data below it’s prudent to remember that we aren’t strictly comparing apples with apples. The Israeli forces’ main mission is a defensive one aimed at protecting their home territory: Australian forces’ main mission is to project our power overseas, in alliance, so as to forestall any risk before it manifests itself on our shores.
There are other differences that aren’t covered in our crude comparison. Key amongst these is that it doesn’t allow for the quantity of ‘assets’ listed. For example, although both the ADF and IDF have equal numbers of subs, we only have one Collins Class in the water most of the time, whereas Israel is reported on average, to have two.
The dramatic cancelling of the French submarine contract (and its replacement with AUKUS) was the trigger that got the public rethinking about how well our country is defended. So I’ve started by comparing navies because unless we keep our sea lanes open, Australia will soon grind to a halt.
All the figures below are educated guesses. Various sources quote different figures using different definitions. Nonetheless the overall picture they convey is a reasonably accurate one.
| Australia | Israel | |
| Total Personnel | (ADF) | (IDF) |
| Active | 59,000 | 172,000 |
| Reserves | 28,000 | 465,000 |
| NAVY | ||
| Total Ships | 50 | 74 |
| Helicopter Carriers | 2 | 0 |
| Destroyers | 3 | 0 |
| Frigates | 8 | 0 |
| Corvettes | 0 | 7 |
| Offshore Patrol Vessels | 13 (No missiles) | 48 (carry Cruise missiles) |
| Submarines | 6 (No missiles) | 5 (carry Cruise missiles) |
| Helicopters, strike | 24 | 5 |
| Helicopters, logistics | 6 | 0 |
| ARMY | ||
| Active Personnel | 29,000 | 127,000 |
| Reserve | 18,000 | 400,000 |
| Tanks | 59* | 1,600+ |
| Armoured Vehicles | 1,600 | 8,000+ |
| Artillery | 300 | 1,000+ Includes 48 Rocket Batteries |
| Self-propelled guns | 0 | 650 |
| Attack Helicopters | 21 | 80 |
| AIRFORCE | * Now (slowly) being given to Ukraine; date of replacements uncertain | |
| Total planes | 259 | 580 |
| Combat | ||
| Strike Fighters | 24 | 21 |
| Multi-role fighter/bombers | 42 | 230 |
| Helicopters | [Transferred to Army in 1989] | 138 |
There are four more important pieces of information one needs to know before reaching any conclusion as to what the above facts might mean or infer about how ‘casual’ Australia is about building an adequate defence force.
The first is that Australia (as a matter of choice) has no nuclear weapons – Israel is estimated to have between 90 and a 100.
Second Australia has a population over 25 million – Israel’s population is under 9 million.
Third, Australia has the financial capacity to invest more in defence – ie. the national ability to pay. It’s all a matter of priorities.
National Ability to Pay
| * Size of Economy (GDP) | *Per Capita income (adjusted purchasing power) |
| • Russia (ranks 12) | • Australia (ranks 21) |
| • Australia (ranks 14) | • Israel (ranks 35) |
| • Israel (ranks 33) | • Russia (ranks 57) |
Fourth Israelis seem to get their equipment at far better prices than we do – to secure better value for their money.
My interpretation of these comparisons is that the smaller nation takes its defence far more seriously than we do.
This is because Israel sees itself to be under more immediate threat while Australia believes it can afford to be more relaxed because we aren’t at such high risk – or needn’t worry anyway because the US will always ride to our rescue. Such comforting opinions may prove right. But emerging trends suggest otherwise. China only seems to suffer two types of nations; those that kowtow and those that, if attacked, have the wherewithal to retaliate by giving China a bloody nose.
Our ’boutique’ forces may well be amongst the best in the world. But that doesn’t mean that David can beat Goliath. It’s only because David was such an exception to the general rule that he’s remembered at all. Most military strategists agree with Roger de Rabutin (Comte de Bussy) that “God favours those with the most battalions.”
To have pride in our military forces is a good thing, as long as it doesn’t blind us to reality. We have plenty of evidence as to the limited manpower and materiel our forces will to have to operate with over the next decade. No new submarines until 2040, the collapse of any meaningful on-shore manufacturing capacity, delays -always delays – in almost everything including the critical delivery of aircraft and frigates, a shortage of battle-ready infantry troops (that led to the SAS being sent on tour after tour to the Middle East until too many of these elite soldiers, understandably, collapsed into suicide or went haywire).
I’m old enough to remember men of my father’s generation telling stories about friends going into battle in pitifully small numbers with little or no training, obsolete weapons and only a few rounds of ammunition. They recounted that their fathers found themselves in similar situations in WW1.
Democracies are always slow to arm/rearm. It’s a laxity we can no longer afford. We owe it to those who fight in our name to fund and equip them properly.
In hindsight, we should be ashamed that our airmen had to try and defend us flying a small number of slow Wirraway trainers against the far faster, better armed (and in every other way superior) Zero fighters of the Japanese in WW11.
Men in other services have parallel stories to tell, lots and lots of them. But they did their duty, knowing their chances of survival were often slim.
It’s time we citizens did our duty and accepted our responsibility toward those who stand ready to defend us. We’ll know we’ve got things out of perspective if we become so passionately focused on fighting for our individual rights at home that we forget to take care of those we ask to protect our very ability to enjoy those rights when they’re threatened by nations less free than ours.
Successive governments of both persuasions – in combination with a sclerotic bureaucracy – have failed to address this critical issue, decade after decade. It’s time they did.
Voters need to remind our political class that their first responsibility is to protect us. We don’t need more ‘White Papers’ or brave sounding but empty promises, we need urgent action; action, now.