Rebaselining

In announcing the review, Smith said it would “address the range of present and emerging global, regional and national strategic and security factors which require careful consideration for the future. ” These include “the rise of the Asia Pacific as a region of global strategic significance; the rise of the Indian Ocean rim as a region of global strategic significance; the growth of military power projection capabilities of countries in the Asia Pacific; the growing need for the provision of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief following extreme events in the Asia Pacific region; and energy security and security issues associated with expanding offshore resource exploitation in our northwest and northern approaches. ” The Force Posture Review differs from the Defence White Paper process – the last of which was published in 2009 and the next due in 2014 – in that rather than focusing on ADF capabilities and the strategic environment, it will instead look at where that capability is based and forward deployed from, what personnel levels will be required to man these bases, what community infrastructure will be required, and what posture the various units at these bases should take – all of which will ensure that this basing and positioning structure is appropriate for current and emergent threats. “It is essential that into the future Defence and the ADF is [sic] appropriately positioned to respond in a timely way to Australia’s strategic and security demands,” the Ministerial statement read.

Of course, these security demands will not just take into account threats from the military domain, with resource asset protection – particularly in the booming northwest – and border security also key considerations.

Minister Smith’s release says the review will take into account work currently being done on base consolidation “through which Defence is assessing basing requirements and developing options for changes to Defence’s estate over the next 25 year period. ” Recent examples of base consolidation are the co-location of Army with RAAF units at RAAF Bases Edinburgh and Amberley, although some feel Defence has barely scratched the surface of what is possible.

Bases like Garden Island on Sydney Harbour and RAAF Richmond in Sydney’s west are likely to be at risk, while the infrastructure such as ramp and hangar space at RAAF Bases Amberley, Townsville and Edinburgh, and dock facilities at Darwin and Cairns, will likely also need bolstering.

Other considerations which the review will use “as its starting point” will be based on the outcomes of the 2009 Defence White Paper – Force 2030; will draw fromwork being undertaken on the 2011 Annual Defence Planning Guidance; will consider the strategic positioning and roles of Australia’s ocean territories including Cocos and Christmas Islands; and will consider how a future ADF force posture will support our ability to respond to a range of activities.

These activities include overseas deployments and missions; support of operations in our wider region; and practical engagement with countries in our region to help shape security and strategic circumstances in our interests.

The review will also consider an assessment on the impact on the ADF’s Force Posture of a range of domestic, demographic and economic issues including more intense resource exploitation activities around defence facilities; urban encroachment on defence facilities; community attitudes to living standards and residential locations; and the need for a more costeffective approach to basing.

The review will also make recommendations in relation to the basing options for Force 2030 for the Navy’s air warfare destroyers (AWDs), landing helicopter docks (LHDs), future submarines, Anzac frigates and their Sea 5000 replacements, and offshore patrol vessels; the Army’s additional northern basing requirements; and the RAAF’s ongoing efforts to introduce a range of new aircraft such as the F-35 JSF and associated support systems into service.

Importantly, Minister Smith’s release emphasises that the Review “will complement the work currently underway with the United States on the ongoing United States Global Force Posture Review by the joint Australian-United States working group. ” The panel is due to provide a progress report to Minister Smith before the end of 2011, with the report to be finalised in the first quarter next year.

Other Considerations

Minister Smith’s statement said, “the results of the Review and the views of the expert panel will help provide a strategic context for the next scheduled Defence White Paper in the first quarter of 2014. ” But it could logically be argued that such a review would be more useful if conducted concurrently with the White Paper process or shortly thereafter, in order for the two processes to be mutually relevant, instead of being initiated mid way between two White Papers which – based on the the government’s desire to return to budget surplus and other emergent strategic and financial influences – are likely to be somewhat divergent. One only needs to look at how the post White Paper funding model has unravelled through successive Defence Capability Plans and federal budgets to see how fleeting the goals of a White Paper can be.

Despite the Minister’s stated emphasis on the US Global Force Posture Review, the timing of Australia’s review also puts Australia somewhat out of sync with our major ally in the region. With President Obama recently announcing a drawdown of his ‘surge’ troops in Afghanistan and the US defence budget under severe stress, Australia may well be required to take on a bigger responsibility in maintaining the forward leaning posture of allied forces in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans, and perhaps further afield. But, despite many analysts saying it’s inevitable that many of the forward deployed US forces will be brought home – particularly those in Europe – the US defence budget is yet to see any major adjustments made to this posture.

The ability to fight within a coalition with strategic allies like the US, UK and New Zealand will always be a priority, but if the strategic emphasis of these nations becomes more introspective as we’re seeing in the UK, even as the strategic situation in our immediate region continues to intensify, then different capabilities for the ADF, and hence a different force posture, are going to be required.

It could also be argued that a whole of government approach needs to be taken to the issues of disaster relief, border protection and other national security issues such as cyber security. For domestic and regional disaster relief, the pre-positioning of assets such as vehicles, emergency supplies, temporary shelters/housing and other short notice required items that may be needed following an event such as a major cyclone or January’s Queensland floods should be considered. This would obviously be more relevant in the country’s north near population centres, but pre-positioned warehouses could also be established in neighbouring countries such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, both of which have suffered badly from disasters in recent times.

Despite the often heroic efforts of many individuals involved at the coalface of such emergencies, the current ad hoc multilayered government and non-government organisation (NGO) approach to disaster relief is neither particularly efficient nor effective. The location of the Care Australia warehouse at Moorebank in Sydney is a prime example. Moorebank is 15km by road from Sydney Airport, and more than 30km from RAAF Richmond which is only a C-130 base and is not capable of supporting C-17, KC-30A or larger aircraft for long range ops with large payloads. A more suitable location for such a warehouse would be on or near RAAF Bases Amberley and/ or Pearce, or in storm-proofed buildings in Darwin, Townsville and/or Broome.

Meanwhile, border protection, particularly off Australia’s north and northwest coasts – whether to respond to an actual or a perceived threat – continues to be an emotive issue with a majority of Australians, and thus the government spends vast amounts of money and human resources patrolling an area almost the size of the Australian continent itself with relatively few surface and airborne assets belonging to the RAN, RAAF, Customs and Border Protection, and other agencies.

As the excellent Leaky Boats documentary and subsequent Q&A program on ABC television on July 7 showed us, although they will continue to do so as long as government requires them to, there is much resentment within the ADF over how the Navy in particular has been used, what one person described as a “political instrument” against the perceived never ending flotilla of boats arriving from Indonesia and other points north.

While Defence insiders accept that a defence force is an obvious tool of influence for a government, they say that the border protection role against what are essentially unarmed civilians can be better and moreefficiently performed by a more specialised coast guard-like organisation supported by a whole of government approach to long range, overwater intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR).

Similarly, the surveillance of offshore and coastal resources can also be performed by a coast guard, perhaps with an ADF contingent located in the region on a permanent or rotational basis for support against any threat and to assist with disaster relief work.

Another consideration the review will need to take into account is the changing demographics within the ADF – and indeed Australian society as a whole – that has seen greater pressure placed on members by their families to strike a work-life balance. Defence insiders tell AA that, while many are still focussed on the ADF as a career and therefore accept that remote postings are likely at some stage, it is not uncommon these days for the spouses of ADF members to also have successful careers, and therefore be less willing to be uprooted every two or three years. This is especially the case with senior NCOs who have been ‘in’ for 20 years or more, and whose wives or husbands may have established careers that may bring in more than the member earns. Plus, with both parents working in dual income households far more common now, families with young children often prefer to be located near grandparents and other support groups to assist with childcare.

While it will likely be deemed essential for the ADF to maintain a permanent fast jet, small surface vessel, and land forces presence in the north, perhaps the review could consider the option of, rather than permanent remote basing in places like RAAF Tindal in the Northern Territory or other locations, that a rotational arrangement be implemented where units would deploy to a remote base for periods of weeks or months at a time, rather than the usual two to three year posting cycle. Such an arrangement is believed to be under consideration at Tindal for the RAAF’s F-35 JSF when it replaces the F/A-18 Hornet later this decade.

Under a rotational arrangement, major equipment and infrastructure and a skeleton maintenance workforce can remain at the base, with just a changeover of personnel and key unit-specific equipment needed to be brought on the deployment. Despite being transient, the continuing defence presence would ensure local communities and infrastructure would continue to benefit from providing services to Defence personnel based nearby.

Co-existence

Another issue which will likely be raised is the sharing of military facilities with civilian enterprises. This is a particular issue at Williamtown, Townsville and Darwin, where the RAAF operates from one side of the airfields, and civil RPT traffic from the other.

The RAAF has made it clear in recent years that military operations must take precedence over civil movements, scheduled or otherwise, and in the case of Williamtown, has actively resisted proposals by local, state and federal government officials to consider the base as the site of a second airport for Sydney.

The RAAF’s view has been supported by a review into civil aviation access to military airfields, which was released for public comment by Minister Smith on June 16. It warns against further easing of access restrictions to RAAF bases around Australia, arguing there is “no case” to open bases near major capital cities to RPT airline operations.

“The major capital city airports have adequate capacity to meet current and future civil air traffic demands,” the report, dated September 2010 and authored by Air Vice- Marshal Bob Treloar and Air Commodore Paul Devine, argues.

If the report is accepted by government, that conclusion would effectively close the door on any airline operations from Richmond, Edinburgh and Amberley, and see restrictions placed on the expansion of operations at Williamtown, Townsville and Darwin. In the past, Jetstar in particular has expressed interest in operating from RAAF bases, given their potential to provide competition to otherwise monopoly major city airports.

Rapid growth in low cost airline A320 and 737 operations into Newcastle Airport, which shares RAAF Williamtown’s runways and taxiways, has created unforeseen issues, the report notes. “The WLM [Williamtown] experience provides sufficient warning that civil aviation access can have unintended consequences for Air Force, including costs, capability loss or skewing personnel requirements (ATS and ARFFS), and ultimately reduced military access to the airfield, with attendant significant, possibly irretrievable, capability loss. ” The report also says that further general aviation access to RAAF bases, including the major pilot/instructor training bases of Pearce and East Sale, “is not recommended, either during normal operating periods or out of hours. Once significant general aviation activity is approved at Air Force airfields, reversing the decision would be difficult. ” The public consultation process on the review into civil aviation access to military airfields closes on October 31.

Then there is the separate review will that will look at cruise ship access to the Navy’s Garden Island base in Sydney, especially since commercial shipping in Sydney Harbour has been moved to Botany Bay, and berthing facilities upstream of the Harbour Bridge formerly used by cruise ships have either been closed or are earmarked for redevelopment. To be considered is the fact that Garden Island will be the home base of the Navy’s two large Canberra class LHDs and three Hobart class AWDs when they enter service from 2014, as well as the former UK RFA Largs Bay amphibious ship which arrives late this year.

A complex mix

It is important for the Force Posture Review to look beyond just the ADF when considering its findings, and that it takes a whole of government approach to basing, posture, infrastructure, the environment, the efficiencies of joint bases, co-existence with civilian operations, the potential inefficiencies of single capability bases in or near metropolitan areas, community infrastructure and economics, work-life balances, and all the other considerations outlined above.