Login
iscover
As counter terrorism and the War on Terror gives way to a period of renewed ‘great power competition’, the US has kick-started a period of defence modernisation. Leading the charge is the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), which has provided interesting insight into future capability and planning.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
For the first time in nearly a century, two great powers stare across the vast expanse of the Pacific, the incumbent heavyweight champion – the US, tired and battle-weary from decades of conflict in the Middle East is being circled by the upstart – China, seeking to shake off the last vestiges of the “century of humiliation” and ascend to its position as a world leader.
Further compounding the US position is its broader global responsibilities, maintaining tactical and strategic deterrence in Europe against potential Russia aggression, the economic impact of COVID-19 and simmering societal challenges are combining to erode US resolve and capability at a time when traditional allies including Australia are looking to Washington for certainty.
Nevertheless, US President Donald Trump has sought to counter the rise of China by providing an unprecedented level of funding to the US Armed Forces, with a focus on expanding the modernisation and replacement schedule of Cold War-era legacy platforms in favour of fifth-generation air, land, sea and multi-domain capabilities supported by an expected budget of US$738 billion for FY2020, with US$740.5 billion expected for FY2021.
As the challenges continue to mount, the US Senate Armed Services Committee has handed down its comprehensive summary of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which redoubles priorities established in the FY2020 budget, with America's focus clearly aimed at reaffirming its position as the global superpower.
Focus on the future
America's global security responsibilities have placed it in a unique conundrum, as it experiences the same limitations as its ancient forebear Rome did, the financial, political and societal limitations of being the world's policeman.
Decades of conflict and maintaining the post-Second World War order have taken their toll, as much of the Cold War-era inventory of the US military is coming to the end of its useful life and increasingly challenged by the proliferation of peer and near-peer capabilities being fielded by the likes of Russia and China.
The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) summary of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) seeks to build on growing concerns about great power competition, stating: "Two years ago, the National Defense Strategy (NDS) outlined our nation’s pre-eminent challenge: strategic competition with authoritarian adversaries that stand firmly against our shared American values of freedom, democracy, and peace – namely, China and Russia.
"These adversaries seek to shift the global order in their favor, at our expense. In pursuit of this goal, these nations have increased military and economic aggression, worked to develop advanced technologies, expanded their influence around the world, and undermined our own influence."
However, these nations are leveraging advances in technology, as well as the increasingly cost effective nature of technological developments and asymmetric methods of warfare including intellectual property theft, political warfare and economic coercion to directly counter the US position as the security partner of choice for many nations.
To this end, the SASC has identified a number of key points to maximise the massive amount of expenditure the US invests in its defence capability, with the goal of developing a future-proofed, socially responsible and capable force, including:
- Charting a course for the national defence strategy now and into the future;
- Building a modern, innovative, and lethal force;
- Reshaping Pentagon management to maximise performance, accountability and lethality; and
- Supporting troops, their families and the US civilian defence industry workforce.
However, at the core of this is the emphasis on prioritising 'strategic competition' with Russia and China, particularly as both these great powers continue to consolidate their positions as anathema to the post-Second World War economic, political and strategic order.
For the SASC, this strategic competition includes a number of initiatives designed to maintain the tactical and strategic edge the US and its allies enjoy over these peer and near-peer competitors, including:
- Extends the limitation on providing sensitive missile defence information to Russia and on the integration of US missile defence systems into those of China and Russia;
- Requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the risk to DOD personnel, equipment, and operations due to Huawei 5G architecture in host countries and possible steps for mitigation;
- Requires the Secretary of Defense to consider 5G and 6G security risks posed by vendors like Huawei and ZTE when making overseas basing decisions;
- Protects the defense industrial base and supply chain, as well as intellectual property and technology, from disruption, infiltration, or theft by the government of China;
- Extends restrictions on military-to-military cooperation with Russia and any activities that would recognise Russian sovereignty over Crimea; and
- Prohibits the Secretary of Defense from using any funds to reduce air base resiliency or demolish protected aircraft shelters in the European theatre without creating similar protection, or to close or return to host nations existing airbases until the Secretary certifies there is no need for a rotational military presence in the European theatre.
Building on these key points, the SASC emphasises an expansion of what it terms as a 'Combat-Credible Forward Posture', which focuses on ensuring that forward deployed US military forces, across the branches and key tactical and strategic force multipliers are adequately supported with munitions, fuel reserves and infrastructure.
The SASC states, "Encourages the Air Force to establish an F-35A operating location in the Indo-Pacific quickly to posture ready forces in our priority arena ... Encourages DOD to allocate sufficient resources and prioritise the protection of air bases that might be under attack from current or emerging cruise missiles and advanced hypersonic missiles, specifically from China."
In light of these challenges, the US SASC has also emphasised the development of a 'Pacific Defense Initiative' designed to emulate its European counterpart and provide a degree of certainty to key regional allies, including Australia.
Introducing the 'Pacific Defense Initative'
As the challenges continue to mount, theSASC has officially launched a Pacific Defense Initiative (PDI) to allocate funding and resourcing to better support tactical and strategic posture in the region.
As part of the proposed PDI, the US Senate is asking for US$7 billion ($10.2 billion) to help support America's largest combatant command, INDOPACOM, counter the rise of China and Russia, a nation long overlooked as a major player in the Indo-Pacific region.
The SASC has requested US$1.4 billion ($2 billion) for next year, with an additional US$5.5 billion ($8 billion) for the fiscal year 2022 to augment missile defence in support of regional partners and, critically, forward deploy more troops in the Indo-Pacific.
This comes in addition to a US$20 billion ($33.35 billion) request made earlier in the year, which aims to expand the qualitative and quantitative edge enjoyed by the US and support the regional alliance frameworks, which head of INDOPACOM Admiral Phil Davidson describes as "Regain the Advantage".
"Regain the Advantage is designed to persuade potential adversaries that any pre-emptive military action will be extremely costly and likely fail by projecting credible combat power at the time of crisis, and provides the President and Secretary of Defense with several flexible deterrent options to include full OPLAN [operation plan] execution, if it becomes necessary," ADM Davidson is quoted by DefenseNews.
The 2021 NDAA, released by the Senate Armed Services Committee, states, "The best way to protect US security and prosperity in Asia is to maintain a credible balance of military power but, after years of underfunding, America's ability to do so is at risk."
A critical component of the approved NDAA includes plans for the US Air Force to establish a new F-35A Joint Strike Fighter operating facility in the Indo-Pacific "quickly to posture ready forces in our priority arena", the committee states.
This was expanded upon by committee chairman, senator Jim Inhofe, who articulated the growing need for more F-35s in the Indo-Pacific, stating:
"It doesn't matter how many F-35s the military buys if very few are stationed in the region, their primary bases have little defence against Chinese missiles, they don't have secondary airfields to operate from, they can't access prepositioned stocks of fuel and munitions, or they can't be repaired in theatre and get back in the fight when it counts.
"The Pacific Deterrence Initiative will incentivise increased focus on posture and logistics, and help measure whether these requirements are being matched with resources."
The PDI follows on from the original 'European Deterrence Initiative', which was established in the aftermath of Russia's pseudo-invasion of the Crimea in 2014, something that has drawn the attention of Randall Schriver, the Pentagon's former top Pacific policy official, seeing similarities between Crimea and the rising challenge of China in the Indo-Pacific.
Your thoughts
Australia cannot simply continue to rely on the US, or Japan, or the UK, or France to guarantee the economic, political and strategic interests of the nation. China is already actively undermining the regional order through its provocative actions in the South China Sea and its rapid military build-up.
To assume that Australia will remain immune to any hostilities that break out in the region is naive at best and criminally negligent at worst.
As a nation, Australia cannot turn a blind eye to its own geopolitical, economic and strategic backyard, both at a traditional and asymmetric level, lest we see a repeat of Imperial Japan or the Iranian Revolution arrive on our doorstep.
It is clear from history that appeasement does not work, so it is time to avoid repeating the mistakes of our past and be fully prepared to meet any challenge.
There is an old Latin adage that perfectly describes Australia’s predicament and should serve as sage advice: “Si vis pacem, para bellum” – “If you want peace, prepare for war”.
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts in the comments section below, or get in touch at
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.
