Defence experts warn Australia's armed forces 'languishing', short on firepower due to 'deeply inadequate' military spending
With the Prime Minister heading to the G7 in Canada, defence analyst Peter Jennings and Retired Chief of Army, Peter Leahy have both given their thoughts on the AFD and how it stacks up.
A break down by Sky News of regional power players also lays out Australia's fragile capabilities despite numerous governments talking up potency, reliability and acquisitions.
'We are in a very dangerous strategic situation now,' said Peter Jennings, from Strategic Analysis Australia. It's a sentiment shared by Retired Lieutenant General, Peter Leahy.
'In the case of the Australian Army I was the Chief from 2002 to 2008. If I look at the army now it is smaller than what it was then. It's not as capable. It has less armoured protection and recruiting is really quite difficult,' said the former Chief.
A former senior naval officer who wished to remain anonymous affirmed the Royal Australian Navy was down on the missile firepower it had 30 years ago – leaving it short of ships and under-gunned.
With Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Europe rearming and the Chinese Communist Party intent on achieving hegemony in the region, armouries are growing, and defence budgets are being stretched.
This year the United States intends to spend (in Australian dollars) $1.56 trillion on defence. China stated spend is $375-billion although its estimated to more accurately be around $620 billion. It's acquired three aircraft carriers and the world's second largest air force in a little over decade. It's also expanding its nuclear arsenal and is amassing a bespoke fleet to potentially take the democratically governed islands of Taiwan.
Japan continues to ramp up its own defence spending, reportedly up nearly ten per-cent year on year to $105-billion. The sum is equal to one-point-eight percent of its GDP.
Australia will spend $59 billion. It's roughly two per-cent of GDP with an intention to reach two-point-four per cent by 2034.
'We are facing some difficult times,' said Peter Jennings. 'Up against that level of risk, our defence spending is deeply inadequate… We are just a tiny shade over two per-cent of GDP and you know, that I think was a peace time level spend.'
When it comes to combat airpower – fighters, bombers and long-range armed drones, America's force numbers around 3,276.
China's air fleet is estimated to be around 2750. It remains highly secretive around the number of long-range drones capable of inflicting damage.
Japan's defence force numbers 258. Indonesia's strike force is 116.
Australia's modest but capable strike force numbers 108.
The Department of Defence was specifically asked how many long-range armed drones Australia has acquired, but in its answer, didn't identify any.
It's concerning considering the state of the Royal Australian Navy, which critics believe lags a decade behind in acquisition.
Australia operates on a 'three to one' rotation policy meaning its force needs to be divided by three. Consequently, it aims to have two submarines, one destroyer and two frigates available for deployment. Although Australia's two resupply ships are both currently out of action tethering the navy even closer to shore.
When it comes to soldiers and marines, China's fighting force numbers more than a million. Indonesia stands around 300,000. Australia's active duty force has shrunken to 28,500.
'The ADF is a professional organisation, sadly I think it's languishing,' said Peter Leahy.
'There's a really solid debate that says we need to spend more money on defence and I agree entirely. But I agree with the Prime Minister and others that it's not just a sum we need to spend, we need to be careful about what we want. How we acquire and how we introduce it into services.
'Everybody is saying it's the most catastrophic circumstances since before the second world war (and) we need to do something …. Action is required.'
The former Army Chief dismissed the notion Australians should be scared.
'I don't think there's any reason to be scared …. (but) the public need to be concerned that people are thinking about this.'
Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese has publicly sidestepped – if not rebuffed - America's request for Australia to urgently increase the nation's defence spending to three-point-five per cent of GDP, saying 'I think that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence. As simple as that.'
'It's very clear that the Americans think our defence spend is deeply inadequate,' said Peter Jennings. '(US Defense Secretary) Pete Hegseth in Singapore said we should lift it from two per- cent to three-and-a-half per cent. That's a massive increase … So, I think the signal, not particularly coded from the United States is we need to do a lot better.'
Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently told this reporter, 'We've got to be looking at three per cent. We should be at two-and-a-half per cent as quickly as possible. You know, I'd be saying three-per cent by 2030 … and it's not like we haven't been there before.'
Though, it's always easier to talk about where defence spending should be than decide where taxes should increase or what must be cut.
In the Second World War Australia's defence spend climbed towards 35 per cent of GDP. It's nothing if not an indication of the financial cost of conflict when diplomacy fails.
When it came to opposition, Peter Jennings rebuffed suggestion the outcry amounted to warmongering.
'With the biggest war in Europe since the Second World War, with the Middle East in flame, with China not hiding the fact that it's becoming increasingly aggressive to all of its neighbours, circumnavigating Australia with some of its best military equipment. How could anyone think we are in a benign period and we don't have to worry about these developments,' he said.
'Il's plain for all to see, it's not like you need to have some special security clearance to understand what's going on. We can't afford to be in denial about it,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
36 minutes ago
- West Australian
Countries have a duty to battle climate change: court
An international court says countries have an obligation to prevent harm from climate change and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Activists welcomed the non-binding advisory opinion issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands overnight as a step in the right direction. The move to ask the world court to opine on the issue was initiated by Vanuatu University law students who argued the people of Pacific island countries were unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The ICJ decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. "The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities," Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, said. "It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations and a future". The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions that the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu called the deliberation a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague. Judge Iwasawa said the two questions "represent more than a legal problem: they concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet". "International law, whose authority has been invoked by the General Assembly, has an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem," he said. "A complete solution to this daunting, and self-inflicted, problem requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other. "Above all, a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom - at the individual, social and political levels - to change our habits, comforts and current way of life in order to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come." with AP
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Planning a trip to the US? Don't mention the Donald
There are those who misguidedly believe that not only should sport and politics never mix, travel and politics shouldn't ever coexist either. Fat chance. As the world has witnessed with international sport over the decades, the notion that it and world events can be separated has proved historically risible, and now we witness overseas travel becoming markedly more politicised. Nowhere is it more starkly illustrated than what appears to be the weaponisation of tourism for political purposes by the Trump administration and its facilitators, who appear to be Googling overtime in search of any criticism of the president and his policies. This article, and others I've written critical of US treatment of tourists under the Trump administration in my role as travel editor of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, will likely render any visit by me to the United States a risky proposition. I'm not complaining. For me, it's no loss. It's still a wide, wonderful and mostly welcoming world out there, and word has it that our far more rational Canadian friends could do with a little Antipodean love in the form of a holiday there. Loading So forget about yours truly, and consider the recent case of a reader of the Traveller title of the above publications. Only a few hours before the departure of his flight earlier this month to visit his daughter in the US, Australian Bruce Hyland received notice from American immigration authorities that he would not be permitted to enter the country. This news came after having been approved to visit. 'No reason for a cancellation was provided [for the decision to refuse entry],' Hyland writes in his Traveller letter, 'so one is in the Kafkaesque situation of having breached some official procedure, while having no way to appeal the decision or determine what that procedure could be.'
AU Financial Review
3 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
Beijing targeted Australia to send warning to US, says Morrison
Washington DC | Former prime minister Scott Morrison says Beijing's trade bans on Australian goods and diplomatic freeze during his leadership were aimed at making an example of a key US ally in the Indo-Pacific, where it seeks to gain control of neighbouring democracies. In a rare appearance for a former foreign leader in front of a congressional committee, Morrison warned on Wednesday (Thursday AEST) that the Chinese Communist Party has taken advantage of its growing economic power since the 1990s to build capacity to challenge the global order.
