{"id":12880,"date":"2014-03-19T06:00:23","date_gmt":"2014-03-18T19:00:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=12880"},"modified":"2014-03-20T11:30:11","modified_gmt":"2014-03-20T00:30:11","slug":"air-power-in-australias-future-strategy-part-one","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/air-power-in-australias-future-strategy-part-one\/","title":{"rendered":"Air power in Australia\u2019s future strategy: part one"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n Last week I spoke at the RAAF Air Power Conference<\/a> in Canberra on the theme \u2018Airpower in Australia\u2019s future strategy\u2019 (full text available here<\/a> (PDF)) the essence of which I\u2019ll set out over the course of two blog posts.<\/p>\n That there\u2019ll indeed be air power in Australia\u2019s future strategy isn’t in doubt. The Air Force has a relatively young fleet of aircraft and current acquisition plans that continue the technological refresh. Much of our air power future is the product of decisions already taken by past Governments and Defence Ministers.<\/p>\n That still leaves room to debate the types of air power we will deploy, the strategic circumstances and the purposes for which air power will be used. In my mind, there are seven key questions relating to air power.<\/p>\n First, do we have the right appreciation of the strategic outlook? Recent policy statements have left mixed messages. The 2009 Defence White Paper painted a picture of greater strategic complexity and uncertainty emerging in the Asia-Pacific. The response to this was a plan for a significant long-term increase in defence spending and a strong focus on maritime capabilities.<\/p>\n Contrast that with the three major foreign and defence policy statements released by the Gillard government. The Asian Century White Paper was remarkable for the optimism it expressed about long-term stable growth in the Asia-Pacific. The Prime Minister\u2019s January 2013 National Security Statement described Australia\u2019s strategic landscape as \u2018largely positive\u2019 and \u2018relatively benign\u2019. The 2013 Defence White Paper significantly moderated the language on China and on Australia\u2019s role in the region without changing force structure settings or seriously addressing spending cuts.<\/p>\n The policy community needs to come to a balanced view about how to align economics and national security perspectives. We need to think seriously about the continuing challenge presented by the risk of state-on-state conflict. At the other end of the conflict spectrum we need to think in broader terms about how to handle state fragility.<\/p>\n