Latest news with #PeterLeahy
Sky News AU
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Australia to become 'aircraft carrier' for the US with bases and possible nuclear weapons, retired Lieutenant General says
A former Chief of Australia's Army has questioned whether the US has, or is planning to store nuclear weapons in Australia – while also questioning how long it would be until American 'places' become official US 'bases' around the country. Retired Lieutenant General Peter Leahy – who joined the service in 1971 and rose to become Chief between 2002 until 2008 - has told Sky News that he foresees Australia becoming an 'operational base' for the US under AUKUS. 'Many would remember that during World War II we were the aircraft carrier for the Pacific, I see that happening again. The build-up of American places and let me say … I wonder how much longer we are going to say places rather than bases and I think we need to recognise that,' he said. 'We are seeing fuel farms all over the place, we are seeing a concentration of forces down in Western Australia. There is going to be much more of their air force up around Katherine and Darwin. 'I think a large part of what Australia has got to offer the United States is geography … and a debate yet to be had, are they bases or places?' His thoughts follow sobering comments from Australia's Chief of Defence, Admiral David Johnson who recently revealed the Commonwealth's national security strategy was being recalibrated with the 'security blanket' of ten-year's warning time having now evaporated. 'We are having to reconsider Australia as a homeland from which we will conduct combat operations. And that again is a very different way - almost since the second world war - about how we think of national resilience and preparedness,' Admiral Johnson told the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's annual defence conference. 'We may need to operate and conduct combat operations from this country.' The assessment is broadly interpreted as how Australia would respond to a conflict between America and China. It also takes into account Washington's efforts to reposition strike forces in the region, while keeping them out of immediate danger. 'We are going to become a very important part of that strategic depth for the United States in the Indo-pacific,' Mr Leahy said. 'But I'm yet to figure out as we become more of a base, and we see the positioning of their submarine forces and their bomber forces and perhaps some of their missile forces in Australia, who is going to ask the question, are any of those nuclear armed?' 'Would Australia become a place where we would store nuclear weapons? Because it would seem a bit silly if you've got the capabilities here without the weapons (then) why are you even bothering? 'I think a discussion yet to be had … where are the nuclear weapons?' A spokesperson from the Department of Defence told Sky News, 'The United States does not store or station nuclear weapons in Australia. 'Stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty … to which Australia remains committed.' They said Australia would continue to comply with its international obligations. 'The United States understands and respects our obligations regarding nuclear weapons,' the spokesperson said. It's a case of political incongruity. Under our alliance relationship, Australia benefits from America's strategic nuclear umbrella. Concerned Defence Analyst, Peter Jennings believed Admiral Johnson's remarks showed the Department of Defence now needed 'a rethink' with regard to how the homeland would be protected. 'I thought it was a remarkable statement from our Chief of Defence … and one which says to me, that somehow, they have lost sight of what our key military strategies should be, which is about range and long-distance operations,' he said. 'Our military thinking has always been that we will move our forces as forward into a potential military theatre as we can, in order to avoid the conflict coming to our shores. ' 'We now need a rethink about just what exactly (are) the foundations of our defence policy.' He believes Defence Minister, Richard Marles and Defence Industry Minister, Pat Conroy wanted more money but had been refused by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, saying it 'locked (them) into a policy of non-delivery'. When it came to the Trump administration, Mr Leahy believed looming discussions over budgets would involve an element of 'bluff and bluster' though in part he supported the Prime Minister's position. 'We need to be careful about what we want. How we acquire it. And how we introduce it into services,' he said. 'I don't think we will get pushed that hard (by America) because of the geographic nature of Australia and our importance,' he said. 'I think the US is still keen to have us as a flag on the table. 'But I also think that they recognise there's only so much in terms of what we can offer in terms of capability, in terms of the scale … but eventually we will need to spend more on defence … because the security situation I don't think is going to get any better.' When asked by Sky News if Australian governments had wasted years or money, the former Army Chief declared: 'Both. Without a doubt.' 'We should have been doing this (increasing capability) ten-years ago. And we've wasted money. Some of it is opportunity cost. But the thing that concerns me the most is the immediate readiness and preparedness,' he said. 'We are going to spend a shedload of money out there in the future but right now I see our ability to deploy, to be able to look after our own defence - and surely that's the first thing of a responsibly for a government (to) look after ourselves immediately - we are lacking on that. We need to spend more money for capabilities now and those capabilities are needed now.' he said.
Sky News AU
12-06-2025
- Business
- Sky News AU
Defence experts warn Australia's armed forces 'languishing', short on firepower due to 'deeply inadequate' military spending
Australia's defence force is weaker than it was before East Timor, is under armoured and short of firepower according to stinging analysis by two of the nation's leading defence experts. 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.
