{"id":51817,"date":"2019-11-11T06:00:15","date_gmt":"2019-11-10T19:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=51817"},"modified":"2019-11-10T17:23:10","modified_gmt":"2019-11-10T06:23:10","slug":"australias-defence-the-tangle-of-kit-costs-and-complexity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/australias-defence-the-tangle-of-kit-costs-and-complexity\/","title":{"rendered":"Australia\u2019s defence: the tangle of kit, costs and complexity"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/figure>\n

\u2018Strategy without money is not strategy.\u2019 \u2014Arthur Tange*<\/p>\n

\u2018Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult.\u2019 \u2014Carl von Clausewitz*<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Australian governments are always trying to simplify defence and rein in costs.<\/p>\n

In Canberra\u2019s world of inputs, outputs and deliverables, defence is the big-bucks beast<\/a> that eats much and always demands more. And what, exactly, does the beast deliver for a nation that has its own continent?<\/p>\n

To put the question more formally: What is the optimal defence strategy of an affluent and stable country with no land borders that has never in its modern history experienced enemy soldiers setting foot on its land?<\/p>\n

The conundrum was well presented 50 years ago in a wonderful Bruce Petty cartoon, headed \u2018The great defence shake-up\u2019.<\/p>\n

A senior Oz military officer is sitting at his desk, amid a clutter of paper and models of military kit, yelling in frustration: \u2018For the 500th time can somebody tell me. It\u2019d be a great help. In the light of current allied attitudes: WHO ARE WE TO DEFEND! AGAINST WHAT?\u2019<\/p>\n

A civilian bursts through the door and announces that it\u2019s time for streamlining and a basic restructure, declaring: \u2018Defence planning must assume a new FLEXIBILITY. Our goal is a new dimension in departmental cooperation.\u2019<\/p>\n

The maps and model planes and rockets are swept from the desk and the uniformed officer is plonked on top of the filing cabinet. The be-suited bureaucrat plugs in his electric kettle, organises the rubber bands, then sits at the newly cleared desk and announces to the officer: \u2018Now all I want from you is: Who are we to defend against what?\u2019<\/p>\n

The civilian is booted out and the process begins all over again.<\/p>\n

When Petty drew that cartoon, Australia was deeply involved with the US in losing a war in Vietnam. Yet, even as Vietnam was spiralling away, the visiting British strategist Michael Howard could observe: \u2018The real defence problem of Australia is, in fact, that it does not have a defence problem: that there is not at present a single cloud on the horizon that seriously threatens Australian security.\u2019<\/p>\n

Fifty years on, there\u2019s a growing cloud called China. Lots of other stuff, though, looks familiar. The continent is still secure. Now, as then, Australia worries about the US withdrawing from Asia. Still we ponder the reliability of the alliance. As ever, Canberra grapples with the complexities of the defence beast and how expensive it is to feed.<\/p>\n

The cash that Canberra throws at the beast has much to do with the cost of the military kit. See, for instance, the latest rumination from Andrew Davies and Marcus Hellyer on the very hungry future submarine<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The kit is fiendishly expensive and complicated because government and bureaucracy grapple with Clausewitz\u2019s truth (doing simple things in battle is hard) while confronting Augustine\u2019s laws<\/a>. The laws are the aphoristic observations of Norman R. Augustine<\/a>, an American\u00a0aerospace engineer who did several stints in the Pentagon. Among my Augustine favourites:<\/p>\n