Analysis of the 2016 Defence White Paper

Greetings from the Great Hall of the Australian National University in Canberra, what a panel of ANU defence experts are discussing the Australian Government's 2016 Defence Whitepaper. The first speaker suggested that the white-paper had a "status quo" approach showing three concentric circles of influence.  The first of the three zones is strategic denial in the South Pacific. Second is a zone of stability in South East Asia (where Australia's "edge" is rapidly eroding). The third zone is that of "rules", based on overwhelming US power, which the speaker suggests has been upset by a sea denial fulled arms race.

The second speaker suggested distinguishing between what the paper says it is doing and actually does.They agreed with the first speaker that the white-paper assumes only incremental changes are needed to Australian defence policy. The white-paper assumes that the USA will remain the primary power in Asia and uphold Australia's security, despite indications from US Presidential candidates to the contrary.

The third speaker was in support of the white-paper, describing it as comprehensive and its proposals credible, provided they are funded.The white-paper was developed by competent defence professionals (unlike the former Minister for Defence). The speaker suggested that money and geography were important, but a public white-paper cannot be blunt about other nations. China will have internal problems with old, Russian derived military equipment. The speaker suggested "It will soon be time to teach China a lesson". They then listed US military equipment Australia will "soon" have, including the EA-18G Growler, electronic warfare aircraft. It was surprising to hear this blunt warning in a public forum by a person close to parts of the Australian Government. However, it the speaker also cautioned Australia has limited defence capacity and promises of increased defence spending have not been honored in the past. Some of the speaker's position seemed to be lacking in logic. They argued that Australia should be prepared to take military action to defend trade routes in the South China Sea against China, but that does not make a lot of sense if the trade is with China.

The fourth speaker pointed out that a white-paper is not the end of the defence policy process. They also pointed out, as the previous speaker, previous plans have been undermined by budget cuts. The budget does not allow for turning the Australian Army into a marine force for deployment from new Landing Helicopter Dock ships, or for converting them into F-35b aircraft carriers.In contrast 12 submarines and an increased number of maritime patrol and surveillance aircraft. the speaker suggests the key aim in the white-paper is to defend Australia.This is very different to the previous speaker's emphasis on confronting China.

ps: See also "Cyberwar: Hypothetical for Teaching ICT Ethics".

Australia Purchasing Electronic Warfare Aircraft

In 2008 I suggested a relatively quick and easy purchase for Australian defence would be a dozen EA-18G Growler aircraft. The Australian government has now decided to do this, with twelve F/A-18F Super Hornets to be upgraded for electronic warfare.

It should be noted that while this is an upgrade of a proven aircraft, it is not simply a matter of bolting on some extra parts. The EA-18G electronic suite was derived from an older aircraft and is in need of upgrade. So the aircraft are likely to need an upgrade just about as soon as they are delivered. Also the receivers and transmitters of the aircraft need to be updated frequently with new signatures of the enemy equipment they are to detect and jam. This will require a local team of experts and access to their US counterparts to make the aircraft effective. The USA may be reluctant to provide the required sensitive information if Australia can't secure its on-line infrastructure.

Australian electronic warfare aircraft

On 11 September 2008 I suggested a relatively quick and easy purchase for Australian defence would be dozen EA-18G Growler aircraft. The Australian government has decided to do this, having 12 of the F/A-18F Super Hornet, which have already been ordered, wired for electronic attack. .This can be done for the relatively modest cost of A$35M, as the cable can be installed while the aircraft are being made.

There are some difficult decisions for the ADF to make. All that has been ordered is the cabling in the aircraft, not the extra sensors and transmitters to plug into the cable. The full offensive electronic warfare suite for the F18s would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

The US is unlikely to provide the source codes for the EW software, so that Australia would be dependent on the USA for maintenance, upgrades and local requirements. There would be US imposed restrictions on what Australia could do with the aircraft and the relatively high cost of purchase, training and minenance.

Boeing is considering a export version of the F/A-18G. This would have the cabling and sensors to detect electronic emissions, but not transmitters for jamming. This would allow the aircraft to be sold with fewer export restrictions and be cheaper to buy an maintain. Australian might well choose a middle path, having some aircraft equipped with the full offensive capability and some with just sensors. It might also be worthwile plugging locally developed sensors and transmitters into the pre-installed cabling to customise the aircraft for local conditions.

What Australia should buy for Defence

In a speech to the RSL, the Prime Minister has indicated Australia would increase Defence spending in response to developments in the Asian region. However, defence systems take decades to acquire and Australia has had failures with such projects. But there are some quick and relatively easy, but not cheap, purchases which can be made : electronic warfare aircraft, landing helicopter dock and fast transport ships.

EA-18G Growler Electronic warfare aircraft

One quick and relatively easy purchase for Australia would be a dozen of the EA-18G Growler aircraft. This is the electronic warfare version of the F/A-18F Super Hornet, already ordered by Australia. These could be purchased off the shelf and would make the already ordered Super Hornets more effective. However, the Growler is not perfect: when equipped with its electronic warfare pods, it is slower that the standard F/A-18F. Also Australia would be dependent on the USA for maintenance of the complex electronic systems on board. Later versions of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter are likely to incorporate many of the features of the Growler without a performance penalty, but the aircraft may not be available for decades, if ever.

Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock ships.

Australia could also order one or two more Canberra class "Landing Helicopter Dock" (LHD) ships. These are aircraft carriers, in all but name, and would be useful for longer range operations. There is no fixed wing aircraft in production suitable for the LHD ships, but they could use various rotary wing manned and UAV aircraft. The could also use the the F-35B is the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 when (if) it is available.

Hobart class of destroyers

Australia should add at least one, and perhaps more, to the existing order for three Hobart class destroyers. These are coming from the same company building the LHDs and are to a proven design in use by the Spanish Navy, making a reasonably low risk for such a high technology platform. Extra ships would lower the per unit cost of the program and make training and logistics much easier than buying something different.

Australian made Joint High Speed Vessels

A complement to the Canberra class LHDs would be the production of a class of ships referred by the US DoD as Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV). Australian shipbuilders Incat and Austal are the world leaders in the design and building of JHSVs for the US DoD, but have been largely ignored by the Australian military.

In "Widen the Lens for JHSV" (Proceedings of the U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE, June 2008 Vol. 134/6/1,264), Commander Robert K. Morrison III and Lieutenant Commander Phillip E. Pournelle (U.S. Navy) suggests widening the role for JHSVs. For the cost of one Canberra class ship, the Australian Defence Force could have a fleet of low cost high speed multi-purpose ships. The JHSVs are ideal as helicopter platforms, due to their large deck area. Apart from the lower purchase cost, these would require a far smaller crew, reducing operating costs and recruitment issues. They could also be used for resupplying other ships and submarines, increasing their effectiveness.

Automation to Reduce Recruitment Issues

One aspect of the adapted civilian design of the high speed transport ships is their level of automation. Given the current difficulty in finding enough defence volunteers, Australia could invest in the automation of its existing and new weapons systems.

It is likely that Australia will want to build more of a replacement for the Collins class submarine. Apart from the technical complexity and risk of the project, there is the problem of how to find the crew to operate them. One way is to increase the automation so fewer people would be needed. Also it is likely they will be equipped with autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) to extend their range (miniature robot submarines, about the size and shape of a torpedo).

... the task of an effective national security policy is to maximise the opportunities and minimise the risks.

Driving much of the change in our region will be the rise of China.

China will be the most dynamic major economy in the first half of this century - followed by India.

According to some estimates, by 2020 China will replace the United States as the world’s largest economy.

China’s economic growth will change the way it sees its own role in the world.

And it will change the way others see China – the Olympics are a great example of that.

Over the long term it is clear that China will have more political influence in our region.

Our other major Asian trading partner, Japan, will remain a major world economy even if it is not recording the growth rates of China.

An ageing population will have a major impact on Japan by 2050, with more than one-third of its population over 65.

But given its stature in the region and its continuing strength, Japan remains a major global and regional power.

The United States is likely to remain the world’s only superpower through to the mid-century.

Over the coming decades, the United States may see its position decline relative to other economies, but it will remain a major economic influence and a powerful source of ideas, innovation and technology in the global economy.

You only have to look at the US’s unmatched capacity for transforming new ideas into new technology.

The United States accounts for around one-third of all world patents.

By contrast, Australia accounted for 1.6 per cent and China 1.8 per cent in 2004.

The United States has shown time and time again that it can rise to any challenge and constantly evolve.

So nobody should ever underestimate the ability of the US to maintain its global leadership role.

The United States will also remain strategically dominant given the vast array of military capabilities available to future US administrations.

The Asia-Pacific region will become more prosperous and its population will continue to grow.

Militarily, however, as it has already become economically and politically, the Asia-Pacific will become a much more contested region.

The region’s total population will exceed four billion by 2020, or 56 per cent of the world’s total.

Australia’s population will only experience modest growth, growing to around 35 million by 2050.

But China’s population is expected to peak at around 1.5 billion in 2030.

India will near the 1.8 billion mark by mid-century.

Indonesia’s population could be as high as 350 million.

The demographic changes in our region will mean that by 2020 when we look to our north, we will see a very different region to the one we see now – one where population, food, water and energy resource pressures will be great.

We have to add one more element to this mix when we are looking at the future, and that is the existing military and political fault lines. ...

From: Address to the RSL National Congress, Kevin Rudd,
Prime Minister of Australia, 9 September 2008