Australia: "2020 Defence Strategic Update and 2020 Force Structure Plan"

[MarkOttawa]

The two full docs available at link:

The 2020 Defence Strategic Update and 2020 Force Structure Plan, released on 1 July 2020, outline a new strategy for Defence and the capability investments to deliver it.

The Strategic Update sets out the challenges in Australia’s strategic environment and their implications for Defence planning. It provides a new strategic policy framework to ensure Australia is able – and is understood as willing – to deploy military power to shape our environment, deter actions against our interests and, when required, respond with military force.

While the drivers of change identified in the 2016 Defence White Paper persist, they have accelerated faster than anticipated. Australia now faces an environment of increasing strategic competition; the introduction of more capable military systems enabled by technological change; and the increasingly aggressive use of diverse grey-zone tactics to coerce states under the threshold for a conventional military response.

While the long-term impacts of the coronavirus pandemic are not yet clear, it has deeply altered the economic trajectory of the region and the world with implications for Australia’s prosperity and security.

The implementation of the 2016 Defence White Paper has seen substantial progress in building a more potent, capable and agile Australian Defence Force. Because of this, Defence is much better positioned to defend Australia and its interests.

However, important adjustments to defence policy are set out in the 2020 Defence Strategic Update to respond to the rapid changes in the strategic environment. The Strategic Update replaces the Strategic Defence Framework set out in the 2016 Defence White Paper with three new strategic objectives:

    to shape Australia’s strategic environment;
    to deter actions against Australia’s interests; and
    to respond with credible military force, when required.

The 2020 Force Structure Plan details the Government’s intentions for new and adjusted Australian Defence Force capability investments to implement the new strategic objectives.

The 2020 Defence Strategic Update and the 2020 Force Structure Plan will ensure that Defence can respond to new challenges as they emerge. This delivers on the Government’s commitment to protect Australia and its interests.

Fact Sheets

    Defence Budget Factsheet [PDF 1.88 MB]
    2020 Defence Strategic Update Factsheet [PDF 1.84 MB]
    2020 Force Structure Plan Factsheet [PDF 1.84 MB]
    Defence Workforce Factsheet [PDF 3.26 MB]
    Defence Industry and Innovation Factsheet [PDF 1.84 MB]
    Australia’s Defence Force Posture and Engagement 2016-2020 Factsheet [PDF 1.85 MB]
    Information and Cyber Factsheet [PDF 1.82 MB]
    Maritime Factsheet [PDF 1.91 MB]
    Air Factsheet [PDF 1.86 MB]
    Space Factsheet [PDF 1.84 MB]
    Land Factsheet [PDF 3.32 MB]
    Naval Shipbuilding Factsheet [PDF 1.90 MB]
    Defence Enterprise [PDF 1.88 MB]
https://www.defence.gov.au/strategicupdate-2020/

Will we ever get such an effort from the Canadian government?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The two full docs available at link:

Will we ever get such an effort from the Canadian government?

Mark
Ottawa

No because in the grand scheme of things we have more in common with the Kiwis than the Aussies.  Australia is a regional power while the Kiwis are basically a client state.  Ditto our relationship with the Americans.

 

[observor 69]

As always the presence of a real threat to national security sharpens the interest in all things military.

"he growth of China’s national power, including its military modernization, means China’s policies and actions will have a major impact on the stability of the Indo‐Pacific to 2035."

https://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/ataglance/strategic-outlook.asp

 

[Spencer100]

People taking notice

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/australia-to-revamp-defences-with-a270b-budget-as-china-tensions-rise?fbclid=IwAR1edo6da5WMKIAIQGRTScz0glwBHaqRS8M8EsPpYNsQAyVk4eHI1TRx3Jo

 

[MilEME09]

Broken down thats an extra 26 billion a year, which is more then our own defense budget. Also more thought out then SSE is, but that's what an actual threat will do. Part of me thinks we should invite Australia to come in and redo our procurement system. While theirs isn't perfect, they appear to deliver quicker then we ever could, and operate capabilities we could only dream of despite being of similar size and budget.

 

[MarkOttawa]

More:

Australia Plans $190 Billion Defense Boost Over Decade
Prime Minister Scott Morrison warned that the post-pandemic world will become more dangerous.

Australia’s prime minister on Wednesday announced 270 billion Australian dollars (US$190 billion) in additional defense spending over the next decade, which will include long-range missiles and other capabilities to hold enemies further from its shores.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison warned that the post-pandemic world will become more dangerous and announced a renewed focus on Australia’s immediate region, although its military would be open to joining U.S.-led coalitions as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq in campaigns that were in the Australian national interest [emphasis added--and CAF should be focused on NORAD and North Atlantic].

Australia had not seen such economic and strategic uncertainty in the region since World War II for reasons including tensions between the United States and China, he said.

“This simple truth is this: Even as we stare down the COVID pandemic at home, we need to also prepare for a post-COVID world that is poorer, that is more dangerous and that is more disorderly,” Morrison said.

Tensions over territorial claims were rising between India and China and in the South China Sea, Morrison said.

“The risk of miscalculation and even conflict is heightened,” Morrison said. “Regional military modernization is at an unprecedented rate.”

“Relations between China and the United States are fractious at best as they compete for political, economic and technological supremacy,” he added.

Rory Medcalf, head of the Australian National University’s National Security College, said the announcement showed Australia was “getting serious about deterrence and the prospect of armed conflict in the Indo-Pacific region.”

“It was only a matter of time before the Australian government made a choice about the kind of defense force that we’re going to have in the 21st century with the rapid deterioration in the strategic environment in recent years,” Medcalf said.

“The government has accepted that the Australian military needs to be able to attempt to deter armed conflict through its capabilities and to be able to fight in our region if we have to,” he added.

Australia will invest in more lethal and long-range capabilities that will hold enemies further from its shores, including longer-range strike weapons and offensive cyber capabilities.

To increase maritime strike capability, Australia will buy the AGM-158C anti-ship missile from the U.S. Navy at an estimated cost of AU$800 million [emphasis added], the government said.

The new missile is a significant upgrade from Australia’s current AGM-84 air-launched Harpoon anti-ship missile, which was introduced in the early 1980s. It has a range of 124 kilometers (77 miles), while the missile being purchased can exceed 370 kilometers (230 miles).

The new missile will initially be used on the F/A-18F Super Hornet jet fighters but can be used by other defense aircraft [P-8A Poseidon?]. Training on the weapon system would begin next year, the government said.

Australia will also invest in advanced naval strike capabilities, including long-range anti-ship and land strike weapons, and will buy long-range rocket artillery and missile systems to give the army an operational strike capability [emphasis added].

It also plans to develop and test high-speed, long-range strike weapons, including hypersonic weapons [!!! emphasis added].

The announcement comes as Australia’s relationship with China, its most important trading partner, is under extraordinary strain over Australian calls for an independent investigation of the pandemic.

The United States, Australia’s most important security partner since WWII, remains “the foundation of our defense policy,” Morrison said.

“Of course we can’t match all the capabilities in our region,” Morrison said. “That is why we need to ensure that our deterrence capabilities play to our strengths.”
https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/australia-plans-190-billion-defense-boost-over-decade/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[FJAG]

No because in the grand scheme of things we have more in common with the Kiwis than the Aussies.  Australia is a regional power while the Kiwis are basically a client state.  Ditto our relationship with the Americans.

I'm not so sure that's either true or the issue.

While Australia may be a regional power, the region is also of great strategic interest to the US and the US will always remain a (if not the) major player in the region. What Australia is recognizing is a growing threat and a need to remain a major player amongst its allies.

Canada meanwhile is recognizing the growing threats (and while SSE is a piece of tripe, it does mention Russia and China specifically as threats that we need to deter and possibly fight) but is adamantly refusing to do anything about it. We seem to have gone through a decade of asynchronous warfare which wasn't particularly too stressful on the nation even if it was on the CAF and we've since slid back into Kumbaya/Sunny Ways mode where we've inelegantly gone back to hiding our heads in the sand.

If we're a client state of the US for defence purposes, then we're a damn poor one. Our forces have neither the lethality nor the sustainability to face our biggest known threats even when supported by our allies.

It's not our relationship with the US that's the issue; it's the complacency of our civilian and military leadership who are coasting on the false belief that our position on the world stage (won over a half a century ago) is secure. It's not.

:stirpot:

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I'm not so sure that's either true or the issue.

While Australia may be a regional power, the region is also of great strategic interest to the US and the US will always remain a (if not the) major player in the region. What Australia is recognizing is a growing threat and a need to remain a major player amongst its allies.

Canada meanwhile is recognizing the growing threats (and while SSE is a piece of tripe, it does mention Russia and China specifically as threats that we need to deter and possibly fight) but is adamantly refusing to do anything about it. We seem to have gone through a decade of asynchronous warfare which wasn't particularly too stressful on the nation even if it was on the CAF and we've since slid back into Kumbaya/Sunny Ways mode where we've inelegantly gone back to hiding our heads in the sand.

If we're a client state of the US for defence purposes, then we're a damn poor one. Our forces have neither the lethality nor the sustainability to face our biggest known threats even when supported by our allies.

It's not our relationship with the US that's the issue; it's the complacency of our civilian and military leadership who are coasting on the false belief that our position on the world stage (won over a half a century ago) is secure. It's not.

:stirpot:

I wasn't really referring strictly to Military capabilities.  Australia dominates the Oceania region.  It has both cultural and economic influence over Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, all the Pacific Islands, etc.

It's military blunts Indonesia and other potential threats and is more than capable of invading and intervening in any of its surrounding neighbours which it has done frequently.

New Zealand has let its Military capability atrophy over the years and has essentially ceded decision-making for its Defence to Australia while occasionally going against the grain, much like we do with the Americans.

Canada is essentially a gigantic farm for American resources.  America basically considers the Alberta Oil Sands its strategic reserve.  In the North, all the infrastructure has been paid for by Americans.  We are about as big a client state as they come.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Canada is essentially a gigantic farm for American resources.  America basically considers the Alberta Oil Sands its strategic reserve.  In the North, all the infrastructure has been paid for by Americans.  We are about as big a client state as they come.

Huh.  We proabaly have not read the same books, articles and reports.  Another way to say that:

Australia is essentially a gigantic farm for Chinese resources.  China basically considers Australian Coal Fields its strategic reserve.  Across the continent, much of the infrastructure has been paid for by China.  Australia is about as big a client state as they come.

While I am at it, do you have a source for this assertion:

In the North, all the infrastructure has been paid for by Americans.

I am not aware of direct government investment in our North.  MNCs perhaps (Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell come to mind), but they are not (so far) instruments of national power in the US....like they are in China

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Huh.  We proabaly have not read the same books, articles and reports.  Another way to say that:

Australia is essentially a gigantic farm for Chinese resources.  China basically considers Australian Coal Fields its strategic reserve.  Across the continent, much of the infrastructure has been paid for by China.  Australia is about as big a client state as they come.

Australia has shown a willingness to actually do something about it though:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2020/06/05/china-foreign-investment-powers/

Unlike Canada, they also don't try and destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs:

https://o.canada.com/pmn/business-pmn/iron-ore-gold-are-keeping-australias-luck-from-running-out-russell/wcm/539e8580-e760-4cdc-a825-cd7adc6f4015

While I am at it, do you have a source for this assertion:

I am not aware of direct government investment in our North.  MNCs perhaps (Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell come to mind), but they are not (so far) instruments of national power in the US....like they are in China

https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/norad-lives-on-the-line

Construction of the 63 DEW Line stations was paid for by the Americans, using some 25,000 Canadian labourers.• The massive project used an estimated half a million tons of construction material, including enough gravel to make a road from Vancouver to Halifax.

The US invested $147.8 million in the project for men, materials and equipment. Canada provided the right of way and on 3 April 1946 took over the 1954-km portion of the road from Dawson Creek to the Alaska border. Canada paid the US $108 million to cover airfields and flight strips, buildings, telephone systems and other assets, but not construction of the highway itself.

Opened to unrestricted travel in 1947, the road was regraded and widened by Canadian army engineers during the next 17 years, until it was turned over (1964) to the federal department of public works, which has continued to improve it. Some of the road has been paved, but hundreds of kilometres are bituminous surface-treated to carry the traffic, which ranges from 220 vehicles a day in isolated areas to 1700 a day near Whitehorse.

Maintenance is a continual battle against nature, with floods and landslides in spring and blizzards and extreme cold in winter, when temperatures of -48°C can cause bulldozer blades to crack like glass. Although originally built for military purposes, the highway has helped the forestry, oil, mining, tourist and trucking industries. It provided an important impetus to the development of Edmonton as a supply centre and, as an enduring link to northern BC and the Yukon, has had the psychological benefit of ending the isolation of the North.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/alaska-highway#:~:text=Canada%20provided%20the%20right%20of,construction%20of%20the%20highway%20itself.

There is also SOSUS which is part of IUSS and much much more.  Most of the existing infrastructure was bought and paid for by the Americans.  We have benefitted of course but have shown no willingness to reinvigorate infrastructure development in the North, despite clearly benefitting from it.

Ironically the only Province that seriously invests in infrastructure in it's remote regions is Quebec.  Seems that province could teach the rest of the Country about sovereignty  8)

 

[Underway]

While Australia may be a regional power, the region is also of great strategic interest to the US and the US will always remain a (if not the) major player in the region. What Australia is recognizing is a growing threat and a need to remain a major player amongst its allies.

The area is only in US strategic interest until it's not.  The US can afford to give up the field and still survive quite happily as the dominant power in NA.  The US is retrenching into their traditional work view of isolationism. Only when its security is threatened does it care about the south pacific.  The north pacific is different, as It views Japan as critical to its own survival, but Australia?  No.  Nice to have an ally, but not necessary for US strategic needs.

 

[FJAG]

The area is only in US strategic interest until it's not.  The US can afford to give up the field and still survive quite happily as the dominant power in NA.  The US is retrenching into their traditional work view of isolationism. Only when its security is threatened does it care about the south pacific.  The north pacific is different, as It views Japan as critical to its own survival, but Australia?  No.  Nice to have an ally, but not necessary for US strategic needs.

Not so sure about that. There are some strategic choke points from non-China Asia, Africa and the Middle East that run though that area on their way to North and South America. The Philippines are no longer as reliable as one would hope for. With China's push into the South China Sea one would think Australia becomes more and more strategically important.

:cheers:

 

[PPCLI Guy]

https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/norad-lives-on-the-line

Oh.., I see.  You meant LAST century.  Gotcha.  8)

 

[Underway]

Not so sure about that. There are some strategic choke points from non-China Asia, Africa and the Middle East that run though that area on their way to North and South America. The Philippines are no longer as reliable as one would hope for. With China's push into the South China Sea one would think Australia becomes more and more strategically important.

:cheers:

What I'm saying is based on assumptions.  The US strategic push up until the end of WW2 was about securing itself in North America.  See Indian wars (digesting land to remove frontiers), War of 1812, Louisiana purchase, Alaska purchase, Spanish-American war, and finally the Lend-Lease (which forced the British to give up their bases that could threaten the continental US).  Since that last bit the US is fully secure on the continent.  No threats can attack her aside from strategic weapons (subs and ICBMs). 

Only 14 percent of US GDP is external through trade (give or take 5% on any given year).  Of that external trade half of it is with Mexico and Canada.  The US can literally afford to not trade in the area, and not care about it.  Shift production to continental or European.

So what is the threat access to the US through Australia?  There isn't one.  In no way would the loss of the South Asia Pacific negatively effect US security and barely effect its economy on the continent.  The only strategic interest the US has in the area is as a counter to China.  Which is a choice, not a geopolitical imperative.  So like I said, its important until it isn't.

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on Aussies' equipment plans--CAF can but dream:

Australia releases weapons wish list amid defense spending boost

Australia plans to increase defense spending over the next decade to AU$270 billion (U.S. $187 billion) in response to what it says is a deteriorating regional environment.

The July 1 announcement by Prime Minister Scott Morrison about the plan coincides with the launch of the government’s 2020 Defence Strategic Update and the associated Force Structure Plan, which will raise projected spending from AU$195 billion as laid out in the 2016 Defence White Paper.

“The simple truth is this: Even as we stare down the COVID pandemic at home, we need to also prepare for a post-COVID world that is poorer, that is more dangerous and that is more disorderly,” Morrison said during the documents launch at the Australian Defence Force Academy on Wednesday.

“We have not seen the conflation of global, economic and strategic uncertainty now being experienced here in Australia in our region since the existential threat we faced when the global and regional order collapsed in the 1930s and 1940s.”

Morrison also cited trends including military modernization, technological disruption and the risk of state-on-state conflict as further complicating factors in the Indo-Pacific region, which he said has deteriorated more rapidly than forecast by the previous whitepaper from 2016.

“The Indo-Pacific is the epicenter of rising, strategic competition. Our region will not only shape our future; increasingly though, it is the focus of the dominant global contest of our age,” he said. “Tensions over territorial claims are rising across the Indo-Pacific region, as we have seen recently on the disputed border between India and China, and the South China Sea and the East China Sea.”

What do the documents say?

The two defense documents forecast the development of closer ties with Australia’s regional partners and with the U.S., but it also warns of the need for enhanced self-reliance, which Morrison said signals the country’s “ability and willingness” to project military power and deter actions against it.

“Relations between China and the U.S. are fractious at best as they compete for political, economic and technological supremacy. But it’s important to acknowledge that they are not the only actors of consequence. The rest of the world and Australia are not just bystanders to this,” he said. “Japan, India, the Republic of Korea, the countries of Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and the Pacific all have agency, choices to make, parts to play, and of course so does Australia.”

Additional capabilities to those already being acquired include long-range strike weapons, area-denial systems and cyber tools — including the establishment of an offensive cyber capability.

Also included on Australia’s shopping list is the Lockheed Martin AGM-158C long-range anti-ship missile, which would become the country’s next air-launched maritime strike weapon under Project Air 3023 Phase 1. Defence Minister Linda Reynolds confirmed Thursday that Australia will acquire an unspecified number of LRASM weapons through a Foreign Military Sales deal with the U.S. Navy.

Training on the weapon is to begin in the U.S. in 2021. The missile will initially be employed by the Royal Australian Air Force’s fleet of 24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet strike fighters, with an initial operational capability to follow in 2023. Reynolds said the missile will also be integrated with Australia’s F-35A jets, which are also made by Lockheed.

Australia is also seeking replacement fleets for the Royal Australian Air Force’s Lockheed Martin C-130J-30 Hercules, Airbus KC-30A Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft, Boeing E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control planes and EA-18G Growler electronic attack platforms.

The country’s Jindalee Operational Radar Network is also to be expanded to cover Australia’s eastern approaches. The government is also backing the creation of a hypersonic weapons development program.

The documents also call for the Royal Australian Navy to receive two new multipurpose sealift and replenishment vessels and up to eight mine countermeasures and tactical hydrographic vessels, to be based on the Arafura-class offshore patrol vessels now under construction in local shipyards.

The Australian Army is to receive an active protection system for its Hawkei and Bushmaster fleets of protected mobility vehicles; two regiments of self-propelled howitzers, to be built locally; and a replacement for its Abrams M1A1 main battle tanks.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/07/02/australia-releases-weapons-wish-list-amid-defense-spending-boost/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CBH99]

Some of that wish list is somewhat surprising...


Replacing C130J-30 (Extended Super Hercs)?  With...what exactly?

Replacing the M1A1 with...M1A2 I'd suppose?  Training, parts, a well established core capability - I'm guessing an upgrade, perhaps with new hulls.  But not a new tank altogether.

The Growlers?  Could see their E/F models being replaced by the F-35 when all the airframes are delivered.



The LRASM capability (perhaps this is the same capability announced a few months ago?) is really impressive.  Being able to reach out and kill ships from hundreds of km away is a real 'regional dominance' capability.

 

[dapaterson]

I am guessing that this is a longer term document, and the KC-30A and C130J-30 replacements are normal lifecycle planning.