Login
iscover
US defence spending might be up, with US$704.5 billion expected to be spent on modernising and expanding the capabilities of the US military as it is restructured to respond to the rising great power competition, however this has resulted in a series of acquisition changes, leaving Australia holding the bag in some cases.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
While the figure pushed for by Defense Secretary Mark Esper is less than the US$750 billion Presiden Donald Trump called for in early 2019, the US$738 billion figure will still see a major ramp up in the modernisation, recapitalisation and expansion of the US military at a time of increasing great power rivalry.
Ranking Republican law maker on the House appropriations defense subcommittee Ken Calvert welcomed the US$20 billion increase over the preceding 2019 budget, explaining: "The bill increases funding for operations and maintenance, and procurement for the next generation of equipment to ensure our men and women in uniform always have the tactical advantage."
This was reinforced by Senate appropriations committee chairman Richard Shelby of Alabama, who stated the deal would see "robust investment in rebuilding our military and secures significant funds for the President’s border wall system".
At the core of the 2020 National Defense Autorization Act will see a number of major acquisition, organisational restructures and modernisation programs to support America's shift away from decades of conflict in Afghanistan and the Middle East, with rising tensions between the US, China and Russia firmly in the cross hairs.
A key component of this shift is the US$15 billion increase in the procurement budget, bringing the Pentagon's total acquisition budget to US$146 billion, which aims to deliver a range of modernisation and platform acquisition programs for the US military at a time when countering the rise of these great power competitors is increasingly critical for global security.
Setting the scene – US budget position
For director of the defence, strategy and national security program at ASPI, Michael Shoebridge, the US defence budget and some of the adjustments to platform acquisition, namely the pause on MQ-4C production, as well as revelations of cuts to US Navy shipbuilding, will have a direct impact on Australia's own plans for defence modernisation and acquisition as outlined in the 2016 Defence White Paper.
This impact, Shoebridge believes, should be directly considered as part of Australia's renewed strategic assessments in countering the rise of China and preparing for an increasing period of great power tensions.
"Australia’s review of defence strategy and the capabilities that flow from it is almost complete. From the outside, the strategic assessment has to be that China’s power and military reach has grown faster than expected, including its ability to reach into and operate in Australia’s near region," Shoebridge explains.
"In addition, the slow growth in Australian military capability through the 2016 Defence White Paper’s major programs – frigates, submarines and armoured vehicles – is out of step with our need, along with our US ally, to have a stronger military to deter China’s assertiveness and presence in our region.
"This time gap needs to be closed, as does an emerging capability gap – once the big new platforms like frigates and submarines turn up, the US and Australia will need harder hitting weapons to launch from them, in greater numbers and with longer ranges, than currently planned.
"The 2021 US defence budget proposal shows how Australia can shift its own plans to deal with the new strategic and operational reality."
This has resulted in the Pentagon beginning a wholesale restructuring of the US Armed Forces as they seek to shift their attention and capability specialisation from counter-insurgency style conflicts towards traditional "great power" competition and deterrence operations.
"The Pentagon is changing the US military’s fundamental design. That’s because many of the weapons and systems it has – or was in the midst of developing and buying – are great for fighting insurgents and terrorists, but are less useful or just plain vulnerable when it comes to fighting or deterring a peer-state military like the People’s Liberation Army," Shoebridge explains.
Shifting focus means shifting budget priorities
In order to better counter the advancing peer-level capabilities of both China and Russia, the US has accordingly had to shift its acquisition, research and development, and long-term planning decisions to ensure that the US can maintain its qualitative and quantitative edge over both potential adversaries.
No where is this clearer than the in the US decision to 'pause' the production of the MQ-4C Triton (which Australia has already committed to acquiring) along with the retirement of the RQ-4 Global Hawk and legacy platforms like the B-1 Lancer, A-10 Thunderbolt II and some F-15 and F-16 fighters, alongside the retirement of four US Navy littoral combat ships.
This has seen the US also bail out of the Reaper armed unmanned aerial system program on the recognition that the platform, while exceptional in an uncontested battlespace, would serve little-to-no use against an advanced, integrated air defence network like those being fielded by Russia and China.
So, what does this mean? Shoebridge states, "The tagline for the new investments is ‘offensive, intelligent and autonomous’. That means things like hypersonic weapons, unmanned surface vessels, long-range and smart munitions, artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, microelectronics and 5G, satellites, and cyber and cloud-computing infrastructure."
This has translated to a marked shift in the typically drawn-out, cumbersome capability design, test and acquisition phases, with the Pnetagon stepping up the introduction of systems like the Orca, a large unmanned submarine, and the development of long-range anti-ship missiles alongside the new 'global strike hypersonic weapon'.
In articulating these points, Shoebridge raises an important question for Australian consideration, asking, "If the US military has decided it lacks combat punch against Chinese capabilities, what does that mean for Australia? Our much smaller force operates predominantly US platforms and has mainly US weapons. The force envisaged in the 2016 white paper mirrors US gaps in offensive power, which the Pentagon is now in a big hurry to close."
Your thoughts
Australia’s position and responsibilities in the Indo-Pacific region will depend on the nation’s ability to sustain itself economically, strategically and politically.
Despite the nation’s virtually unrivalled wealth of natural resources, agricultural and industrial potential, there is a lack of a cohesive national security strategy integrating the development of individual yet complementary public policy strategies to support a more robust Australian role in the region.
Enhancing Australia’s capacity to act as an independent power, incorporating great power-style strategic economic, diplomatic and military capability serves as a powerful symbol of Australia’s sovereignty and evolving responsibilities in supporting and enhancing the security and prosperity of Indo-Pacific Asia.
However, as events continue to unfold throughout the region and China continues to throw its economic, political and strategic weight around, can Australia afford to remain a secondary power or does it need to embrace a larger, more independent role in an era of increasing great power competition?
Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce also issued a challenge for Australia's political and strategic policy leaders, saying:
"If we observe that the level of debate among our leaders is characterised by mud-slinging, obfuscation and the deliberate misrepresentation of the views of others, why would the community behave differently ... Our failure to do so will leave a very damaging legacy for future generations."
Let us know your thoughts and ideas about the development of a holistic national strategy to co-ordinate the nation’s response to mounting pressure from nation-state and asymmetric challenges in the comments section below, or get in touch with
Stephen Kuper
Steve has an extensive career across government, defence industry and advocacy, having previously worked for cabinet ministers at both Federal and State levels.
