Home / Uncategorized / Why Australia’s defence needs a shake up

Why Australia’s defence needs a shake up

| June 20, 2011

I am continuing to put forward proposals for reform in significant policy areas. This week I will deal with defence, as well as Defence. Next week I will focus on how we could manage our federation better than we have so far.

What needs to be fixed in defence – and Defence – well, almost everything, except for the fighting spirit of our men and women in uniform. First, the diarchy that runs Defence, splitting responsibilities between civilians and the ADF is a failure and we should acknowledge the problem…and fix it. It is a failure because it enables both sides of the divide to escape responsibility for bad or inadequate decision-making and because it has resulted in the waste of many billions of dollars buying expensive toys we do not need.

How do we fix this? By adopting a purchaser/provider model. The Government is the funder, one behalf of the taxpayers of Australia, the owners. A slimmed down Department of Defence should be the purchaser, with responsibility for strategy and policy. The ADF should be the provider, with responsibility for the delivery of agreed outcomes and outputs. To ensure that the Government gets the best advice, members of the ADF should be allocated to serve with the purchaser – but as uniformed public servants, not servants of the arm of the ADF from which they come. This model should be modified only in times of war – and I mean war, not peacekeeping or warlike missions. In times of war, the ADF should be allowed operational freedom to do what they do best – fight.

As for the ADF, the separation between army, navy and airforce is an archaic model that ill serves us in an era when wars are fought by integrated forces, supported – and sometimes led – by information and communication technology. The three elements of the ADF should be integrated into one fighting force that has a broad range of capabilities. I am not suggesting turning sailors into soldiers or vice-versa; I am talking about creating functional capabilities that suit the twenty-first century.

That means that the capabilities of the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) should be recognised as a fourth element of modern war fighting and should also be part of an integrated ADF.

Now, let us look at procurement. Review after review, audit after audit, has shown that the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) has failed to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness of defence procurement. It is time to get rid of it, as an unnecessary overhead. In my model, procurement would be the role of the purchaser, under Government direction and with ADF advice – plus truly independent advice, on both procurement methods and on the subject of the proposed acquisition.

On specific procurements underway now, why are we building submarines in Australia, with our poor record for construction of such complex devices and the certainty that budget targets will be grossly overshot? Right now we could buy, for half the price of building submarines here, German submarines that would do what we want them to do and could be here and operational in months, rather than years. That decision alone would put $800 million into Consolidated Revenue.

Then there is the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), which is gross overkill in terms of our likely requirements, is likely to be both costly (at least $16 billion dollars) and less effective than projected, and which is years away from completion. We should be realistic about our likely needs and choose less risky and less expensive solutions, rather than being driven by an understandable desire among the senior uniforms for the best there is – or what they think is the best. Remembering that these are the people who bought Leopard tanks we would never use and rusty support ships worthy of McHale’s Navy, just to cite two of many, many examples.

Oh – memo for Mr Abbott, while you are asking for business cases, would you please get me one for the JSF too?

 

 

Patrick Callioni is a former senior public servant, with the Queensland and Australian Governments, and is now the Senior Executive Advisor, Domestic and International Markets, with the Sustain Group www.sustaingroup.net.  His books Compliance and Regulation in the Financial Services Industry & Waves of Change: Managing Global Trends in the Financial Services Industry are available at Amazon

 

SHARE WITH:

0 Comments

  1. ken saloz

    June 28, 2011 at 12:19 am

    Australia’s defence does need a shake up.

     THE COST FOR OUR MARITIME SECURITY OF OUR NORTHERN LITTORALS AND SHIPPING LANES COULD NOT ONLY BE GREATLY REDUCED, BUT SECURITY  MADE EVEN GREATER WHILE PROVIDING GREATER SUPPORT FOROUR US ALLIES. 

     
    US Army Colonel John Angevine states…Australia cannot defend ourselves, and we have the wrong defence strategy and structure of the Australian Defence Forces.
     
    The Governments defence white paper committed to building 12 large, sophisticated submarines in Australia to replace the six Collins-class boats from the mid-2020s. As critics point out that this is overly ambitious, given that currently only one of the six Collins class submarines is operational. The greater complexity of the proposed replacement the project has minimal of success and it is unlikely that any of the twelve submarines would become operational, if they were built at an estimated cost of A$36 billion. One of the complaints of the navy was there were not enough personnel to man Collins fleet of six vessels – so where would the personnel come from to man the 12 larger Submarines? And where is the money coming from if the defence forces are giving up $4.3 billion?
     
     
     
    Three weeks ago in the "Australian"….THE defence forces will give up a staggering $4.3 billion in funding over five years in a combination of cuts imposed by the government and unwelcome savings made because major projects are lagging behind schedule. 
     
    Two weeks later in the Australian…"Huge new navy, air force and army bases would be built at a cost of billions of dollars to house the bulk of the nation’s military, including new amphibious ships, destroyers, stealth fighters and transport planes – all designed to work in harmony with US forces based in the region." 
     
    We also have the Governments defence white paper committed to building 12 large, sophisticated submarines in Australia to replace the six Collins-class boats from the mid-2020s. As critics point out that this is overly ambitious, given that currently only one of the six Collins class submarines is operational. The greater complexity of the proposed replacement the project has minimal of success and it is unlikely that any of the twelve submarines would become operational, if they were built at an estimated cost of A$36 billion. One of the complaints of the navy was there were not enough personnel to man Collins fleet of six vessels – so where would the personnel come from to man the 12 larger Submarines? And where is the money coming from if the defence forces are giving up $4.3 billion?
     
    Australians need to realize that the United States stands almost alone in the war on terrorism and we Australians are completely dependent on America’s military might for our defence.The fact is that the Australian ADF – total numbers 57,000 can not fight it’s way out of the proverbial paper bag without US support as we saw in the miniscule police action in East Timor. The Indonesians only backed down when the US 7th. Fleet and US Marines threatened to intervene. Incidentally the US Navy has more officers than we have personnel in our entire army, navy and air force.
    So when China, which is now claiming nearly the entire South China Sea as its own through which more than half of Australia’s traded goods have to sail, begins to interfere with ships bound for Australia laden with oil and trade goods, we obviously will always have to back down to this increasingly belligerent and ruthless Communist nation without the support of the US Navy. Ditto when China with it’s 1.5 billion and exploding numbers of people and overfilled fields will have no choice to begin fishing in the territorial waters of other nations – including ours. And as China does not recognize our claim to our Australian Antarctic Territory, the Chinese who have already scoped this area out under the guise of "scientific research" (60 Minutes), will begin to drill for oil and minerals in these pristine waters and may even harvest whales and other marine species. So who will will call on for help? Certainly not the corrupt and useless UN which only ever accomplishes anything when the United States actually does 99 % of the work, or NATO which can’t even mount a minimum bombing campaign in Libya for two weeks without US support.
    There is no possible threat to Australia from invasion because of our alliance with the United States, and the logistics would be to great for any country other than the America. However there is always the very real potential for a clash with Indonesia in West Papua should an aggressive militant Islamic government succeed the present moderate Indonesian government and build missile bases just over off our northern coast.
     
    Also the Indonesian state-sponsored terrorism by Islamic militia groups such as Jemaah Islamiyah backed by the military, were spreading through West Papua/Irian Jaya miles Cape York, and this should be of the utmost concern for our homeland security.This will probably become our main threat and biggest regional challenge as sooner or later we will have to defend the native population of this area as we did in East Timor.
    Let’s face it – Australia just does no have the capability to fund or maintain a large defence force, or even it appears a medium force. It seems after the debacle of HMAS Melbourne that we don’t have the capability to even operate large ships after the small aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne sank two friendly destroyers – one Australian and and one American. And it also appears our defence planners have certainly shown no ability to choose and plan for either equipment or mission, with the navy brass always opting for bigger blue water ships, even though there is no future scenario where we would engage in this type of WWII type open ocean battle, and gainst China’s huge fleet of fast missile attack ships any conflict would be over very quickly.
    Additionally we don’t even have the crews to man them. The defence geniuses have committed billions of dollars on big tanks, giant transport aircraft, massively expensive new destroyers, huge amphibious ships and a helo carrier which need a support fleet. The reality is, an Australian think tank reported that our army cannot field even two meagre battalions for six months without American support.
     
    The cost of border protection however could be substantially reduced, and our borders made infinitely more secure by implementing the following……….
    Eleven years ago I wrote the following proposal on the subject of what we really need for the defence of our northern littorals and shipping lanes. While the navy was buying submarines and large surface combatants, I opined that there was not one potential threat on the blue water horizon where these large ships would be needed, but there were numerous threats in our regional north where we would soon be operating in the littorals. This is where large surface combatants and submarines would be of no use to assist legitimate governments preserve failing states, or to combat terrorists and or pirates in the Southeast Asian archipelago, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, plus PNG and others in our regional backyard.
    We spend billions of dollars on large combatants for our blue water navy, yet Australia has no suitable fighting ships that can operate effectively or safely in the shallow waters of our northern littorals, the most important and likely area of conflict for our forces from failed island nations. We need boats that would be ideal for service in 16,000 islands of Indonesia, the 7,000 islands of the Philippines or PNG where there is a more than a very good chance that we will soon have to assist those legitimate governments in their fight for survival. And probably one day as commercial ship escorts, especially passenger liners and tankers from the South China Sea through our northern island chain. This is where they would be operating in shallow waters close to shore, where large surface combatants and large patrol boats become increasingly vulnerable to mines, fast attack boats, submarines, and land-based aircraft and missiles.
    Needed in place of destroyers, frigates and submarines are heavily armed very small fast attack missile patrol boats ) which can transport troops inshore and act as heavily armed pathfinders for larger ships.
    I was taken to task eleven years ago for forwarding a proposal suggesting that what we really needed instead was a fleet (at least 50) of small ships such as the very impressive Turkish 38 metre Fast Attack Missile Craft the MRTP 33 (Multi Role Tactical Platform) which could be built in Australia under licence, and could be mass produced with modular weapons systems that could be speedily configured for patrol gunboat, torpedo, missiles or minesweeping or a combination, and operated as a special boat unit of the navy or as a fighting coastguard. Each craft with or without their optional jet drives could also land troops on the beach. Action raids/agent insertions, extractions/ demolition teams/pilot rescues. Shallow water mine recon. and clearance. 
    "The Multi-Role Tactical Platform (MRTP) was developed by Yonca Onuk shipyards for coastal and littoral operations. . The boats are manufactured from advanced composite materials. Utilizing a V hull, the MRTP33 can accelerate to up to 75 knots in calm water and maintain 60kt at sea state 3. The boat is operated by a crew of four, can transport up to 20 passengers or a mission payload of 4 tons, including sensors, weapons mounts and divers support equipment. 
    The MRTP-33 SX is the largest of the design family The MRTP-33SX is designed for patrol missions, and littoral warfare operations, including escort and fast attack missions, insertion and extraction of special forces. It can be fitted with CODAG high-seed propulsion system consisting of twin MTU diesels and a Honeywell TF50 gas turbine, all powering water jets. The diesels allow 40 knots patrol speed, while the gas turbine will enable the boat to reach its maximum speed of 80kt. The combined propulsion enables the boat to operate for up to 3 days at ranges up to 650 nm, at a speed of 40kt, while speeding on short dashes to speeds up to 80 knots. MRTP-33sx can have up to a crew of 20. Mission packages can include stabilized naval turrets with automatic guns (30mm), medium and long range guided missiles, 12.7mm machine guns, multi-sensor payloads, search and rescue equipment, decoys and special operations and divers support equipment. "…
    These ships could support US expeditionary forces in any marine landings etc., and the Americans would provide the large ships in any joint campaigns.These craft could easily be transported to areas of conflict around the world by Australian or US transport ships.
    RPG, s has been having a devastating effect on helicopters in Afghanistan and Iraq. These FAMC,s , could be launching platforms for surveillance drones such as the "Dragoneye" or "Raven" Watchdogs’ as used by the USMC for target acquisition and strike coordination, and launched close in before amphibious operations.
    The FAMC,s would have the ability to patrol operational areas in green and even brown water to fill the large gap between the larger Armidale customs patrol craft where frequent patrols are needed of every island, river and bay along our northern shores, which offer many hideouts for infiltrators and mask them from radar. They would patrol for SIEV, s, illegal fishing / aliens / smugglers, gun runners etc., and or more ominously Muslim extremists seeking to one day export terrorism to our regions shores, bringing in bio/chemical weapons or explosives.The craft would also provide security for our oil and gas rig installations and to defend our ports and other vital installations. 
    Additionally we would have the option of a powerful flexible defence / offence able to sprint to regional conflicts, and be able to inspect and /or escort suspicious ships to areas away from our major population areas for more thorough inspections. 
    I proposed that these boats operate from strategically positioned mini bases spread aprox. 100 nautical miles apart along our northern islands and coastline from suitable locations West of Broome ( Carnarvon?) to Cairns and strategic bases in the Solomons, New Guinea etc.
     
    THE BASES: 
    I proposed that these boats operate from strategically positioned mini bases spread aprox.100 nautical miles apart along our northern islands and coastline from suitable locations West of Broome such as Dampier to Cairns. And these bases would provide support for the three NorForce ( Regional Force Surveillance Units) that patrol across the top of Australia, basically as coast watchers looking for illegal entry, drugs etc.
    Each base would have inexpensive prefabricated relocatable buildings, a dock, a workshop, a marine railway and OH Radar. Two patrol boats would operate from each base. Three FPB, s would patrol from larger bases in the more heavily trafficked areas.
    A basic landing field for C-130 or C-7 /AO4 supply aircraft would be needed to transport crews and supplies. At least one helicopter should also be stationed there. These localized bases and patrol craft would present a formidable obstacle to those who would attempt to enter our coastal waters. This should also be made known throughout Indonesia and PNG etc. that the chances of illegal fishing, smuggling, gun running etc. in our waters would be just about zero.
    A large (low keyed) base should be negotiated and built in a central location allowing a fast response to any political upheavals or military threats in potential floundering states such as Nauru, PNG, Fiji, the Solomons. This would also give Australian nationals and others a safe haven before evacuation.
    A freighter could also be converted and used as a "mother ship" allowing the FPB, s to be transported overseas and operate for extended periods anywhere in the world.
    These low cost bases would allow complete coverage of all our northern inshore waters, allowing much higher usage of the FAMC,s , s than the Armidales, with better and longer crew rest periods. This would also free up the Armidales to patrol further offshore, a task that they were designed for. While the Armidales are fine for patrolling further offshore, the smaller FAMC,s are faster, more economical to run and maintain. Because more of them can be built vis-à-vis the Armidales, they can patrol much more area, especially the inshore waters, including brown water where illegals can hide in the many bays and rivers. The MRTP-33 SX has a top speed of 80kt. and it is doubtful if any boats would be capable of outrunning them as is happening now with our current fleet of Armidales.
    In our past operations from East Timor, Fiji, and Guadalcanal where Australians and others lives were threatened, these FPB,s could have sprinted to their destinations way ahead of our larger vessels, then provided fast protection, aid and evacuations. Case in point: The fiasco in the Solomons in 2001 when 700 Australians were trapped and faced a very real threat to their lives. Yet it took the"Tobruk" a week to rescue them….Fiji another story. 
    New Zealand is getting a very big free ride in regional security thanks to Australia and the US. But it’s time for NZ to share the burden and the costs as they too have an obligation for the security of the region, including the nearby island states and our shared shipping lanes. 
    NZ could share in the FAMC,s construction costs of any boats or bases built for duty in our common sea lanes and neighboring island states. NZ could also provide crews. As we are short of navy personnel Australia and New Zealand could train their naval reservists on these boats, so that reservists could make up a third of the crews year round, in what could be a joint ANZ Naval Anti-terrorist Squadron…. ANZNATS?
     
    THE NEW INEXPENSIVE THREAT……
    It’s probably just a matter of time before Muslin extremists/pirates in South East Asia begin using one of the simplest and cheapest ways terrorists have of harming us. That is to launch basic and easily made sea mines into our northern shipping lanes. mines are often called the "poor man’s arsenal" because they are cheap and low tech but have deadly consequences for ships. They would also be absolutely anonymous and would create untold havoc in the disruption of our maritime trade, especially in the straights of our northern approaches and the South China Sea. These mines could drift anywhere on the oceans of the planet, therefore there would be a need in case of a ongoing threat for many minesweepers in a hurry, and the best and fastest way to achieve this, is with the ability to covert some of the FAMC,s into minesweeper mode using their stand-by modular minesweeping systems.
    FAST PATROL BOATS:
    The modern fast patrol boat (or patrol craft, missile boat, fast attack craft, or whatever other name might be used) is among the weapon platforms least understood by the blue-water navies. Even today it is quite common to meet naval officers who still believe that these vessels are similar to the motor torpedo boats (MTBs) of World War II. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
    The fast patrol boat (FPB) of today is a very capable unit. Most of them are built specifically for surface warfare, but variants are also capable of anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare. The modern FPB is armed with exactly the same types of weapons as are carried by frigates and destroyers; therefore it has fundamentally the same destructive power as these much larger ships. FPBs also have sophisticated sensors, comprising radars, low-light-level television, infrared, electronic support measures (ESM), laser systems, etc. They have modern data links and communication systems. The FPB is, of course, fast, and the newest types have stealth features. 
    The FPB of today and of the future is and will be a versatile and economical platform capable of performing many different tasks, including patrolling in peacetime, combat, mine laying, and in some cases mine countermeasure operations"
    …………….Cmdr. Tim Sloth Joergensen, Denmark.
     
    Our ally the USA today has a 350-ship fleet. The USN have ships in abundance to carry troops and aircraft. Australia will not be conducting any expeditionary missions without the US, as we hardly have the capacity for even very minor missions. What is the point in our building large expensive helo carriers and having to support them, tying up many of our destroyers, subs and frigates for support, when the USN can provide these ships to carry our troops and helos on any of our joint expeditionary missions. In return we avail the US with fast attack craft that are ideal for amphibious warfare in the littorals (even Iraq) that they don’t have. These FAMC,s could be used in joint operations with the USN for everything from patrol, shallow water mine recon and clearance to pathfinders for the landing craft and ship escorts.
    "The strategic background to Australia’s security has changed in recent decades and in some respects become more uncertain. The League believes it is essential that Australia develops the capability to defend itself, paying particular attention to maritime defence. Australia is, of geographical necessity, a maritime nation whose prosperity, strength and safety depend to a great extent on the security of the surrounding ocean and island areas, and on sea borne trade. ……………..Navy League of Australia.
     
    SUMMARY:
    Instead of having a large missile ship deterrent force today, we have a military in disarray with subs and surface ships that are almost useless for our needs even when they are functioning, and at a staggering cost at that. And the fact that the government has committed to building 12 large, sophisticated submarines for A$36 billion just staggers the imagination after the debacle of the much less sophisticated Collins Class subs which cost the taxpayers well over A$7 billion.Today as I write we have only one submarine operational.
    Once again we have the wrong ships for our most immediate threats. The RAN have had many reasons why they will not consider these fast patrol attack missile boats for use in our northern defence, opting instead for a big ship navy to fight those over the horizon big ship battles that have failed to materialize. 9/11 should have changed all that when homeland security, especially the threat to our northern approaches and coastal cities, became our absolute priority. 
    Every day more than 360,000 babies are born on the planet, and most of them will be born in the third world. As land and water become scarce, competition for these vital resources intensifies within societies, particularly in the third world. Dwindling resources, natural disasters, epidemics. drought. rising sea-levels. plummeting agricultural yields. crashing economies, political extremism and wars will create massive population shifts, and where better to escape to than prosperous Australia?… 3 million square miles and only 22 million people.
    And what will a handful of large blue water ships and submarines do to secure our country being overrun by these masses?… Not much! 
    These FPB’s are desperately needed now. They are much smaller than the Armidales and could be in service in large numbers very shortly if we placed an initial order to the current manufacturer for completed craft and/or bare hulls that we could fit out and commission here in Australia. Of course mass production in Australia under licence should be our eventual priority.
    While the helo/carriers are very useful for amphibious operations, as I have stated we can use the US Navy’s ships for these operations. We could however go for many years without once needing the use of these carriers. On the other hand we need the Fast Patrol / Missile Attack Craft to patrol and guard our home waters and our sea-lanes, 24/7, year in and year out, and we needed them yesterday!
    ken murray
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
     
    "Global terrorism has entrenched the stateless adversary, with all the associated difficulties of detection and un-predictability. It supposedly tilts the focus of military force structures away from the conventional and towards rapid-response smaller fighting units, with a lot of punch and flexibility. That means change, but not wholesale change and inconsistency. Yet the changes now contemplated (by the ADF) seem more like a neat fit for conventional warfare rather than a rapid-response anti-terrorist capability …Editorial. S.M.Herald. 
    Two – thirds of the Royal Australian Navy fleet could not operate at full capacity at some stage of the first half of last year, putting the force under pressure to scale back its activities around the world.
    The perillous state of the navy is revealed in full for the first time by figures that show 38 of the fleet’s 54 vessels were at some stage hit by faults, repairs, operational restrictions or crew shortages in the first half of last year.
    The navy was further embarrassed last week when it was unable to send any of its three main amphibious support ships – HMAS Tobruk, HMAS Manoora and HMAS Kanimbla – to Queensland to assist in recovery efforts after Cyclone Yasi because the ships were either out of action or unseaworthy. Five of 14 patrol boats were non-operational at some stage for defects or scheduled maintenance.The navy’s two amphibious ships Manoora and Kanimbla are also out of action.
     
    "The Collins Class is literally haemorrhaging taxpayer’s money and we’ve gone from concern about our capability domestically to being embarrassed internationally," Senator Johnston said.
    "If a major incident broke out tomorrow our submarine fleet would be of little use in defending our borders."
     
    According to the navy’s figures, which were provided in response to questions on notice from opposition defence spokesman David Johnston, each of the navy’s six Collins-class submarines spent between five and 12 months of the year to last June in dock undergoing repairs or maintenance.
    On average, the submarine fleet was seaworthy for only 32 per cent of the year because of faulty diesel engines, broken generators, crew shortages and maintenance.
    The head of defence acquisition for the Gillard government has admitted that the nation’s largest defence project, the plan to build three new air warfare destroyers, is a "crisis" that threatens the reputation of Defence and everyone involved in the $8 billion plan.
     
    "In recent years, WA politicians have increasingly fretted about how exposed the North West Shelf is to attack. Premier Colin Barnett has repeatedly complained that asylum seeker vessels have sailed through the oil and gas fields to land as far south as Shark Bay without being detected by Customs or the navy"…The West Australian.
     
    Carrier-based aircraft necessarily have a short-range ( helicopters way shorter) so the carrier needs to travel long distances to take them within striking distance. In doing so, it is vulnerable to attacks, particularly from long-range missiles mounted on shore-based aircraft, surface vessels and submarines. 
    ……………..Giri Deshingkar Director, ICS, New Delhi.
     
     
     
     
     

    • Zbygnyu

      November 25, 2016 at 3:08 am

      “Defence” in the 21st century.

      I'd like to introduce a concept that many will reject, at least initially. I believe that both the definitions (sc. the understanding of what they are) and the roles (sc. the functions and therefore the preferred personnel) of 'Defence' and 'The Military' need to be SEPARATED, re-evaluated and redefined.

      The reasons are neither simple nor obvious, but will quickly be evident to those familiar with both.

      'The Military' means, in a simplistic view, the Army, Navy and Airforce. 'Defence' today more often refers to such things as intelligence agencies, counter-terrorism, cyber-defence, financial structures and the like.

      I'll state a personal view that many might dispute. There is not the slightest chance that either China or Indonesia will 'invade Australia' in the military sense. To put it bluntly, they can obtain EVERYTHING that they desire by the simple expedient of bribing corrupt Australian bureaucrats, 'public servants', politicians and business-people. Proofs of this statement can readily obtained by anyone who knows how to use an Internet search engine.

      REAL DEFENCE of the country's survival, ambitions, values and citizenry requires that these present-day realities be acknowledged in preference to the 'Boys with Expensive Toys' attitude that has not only become entrenched as the nineteenth-century basis of the Australian Defence Establishment, but has long been formalized as the publicly-venerated 'Anzac Warrior Religion' that the mass media now abuses as a tear-jerking prelude to every relevant news item.

      I'll ask the Author of this thread to pass judgment on this opinion before proceeding, since I'd prefer his (qualified?) approval rather than his animosity.