A Cost-Effective Army
A Bushmaster armoured fighting vehicle in Afghanistan (Army). |
The New Australia Army Plan
- No more Main Battle Tanks (MBTs):
- MBTs are principally an offensive weapon system as defined in our peace page.
- We do not support the Army being equipped to assist in major ground wars such as the invasion of Iraq.
- Fifty to Sixty tonne MBTs such as M1 A2 or T-95 are too heavy politically and physically for peacekeeping operations. In many countries 60 tonne tanks would break all the bridges.
- MBTs are not useful for any civil defence purpose whereas amphibious wheeled vehicles like ASLAVs could be quite useful in flood or cyclone disaster scenarios.
- MBTs are unlikely to be cost-effective for self-defence compared to light armoured vehicles with anti-tank weapons.
- Tracked vehicles in general and MBTs in particular need much more logistical support than wheeled vehicles like ASLAVs due to their higher fuel consumption.
- Continued use of wheeled light armoured vehicles: Vehicles such as the 13 tonne ASLAV or Bushmaster are well suited for peacekeeping and self defence.
- Reduced heavy lift capability: We do not recommend deploying Australia's M1 A1 MBTs overseas. This elliminates the need for very heavy lift capability by both air and sea. Lighter air and sea-lift capability would still be required for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.
- Greater distribution within Australia: Current thinking is that any invasion of Australia is very unlikely and if it did occur an enemy would land in the North West and trundle across the desert to the South East. A less unlikely scenario is a surprise attack to take the currently undefended population centres in the South East first. Recruits should be able to join in a State of their choice and remain based their if they choose.
- Increased use of Reserves: We support greater reliance on the reserves for self defence. This fits well with the greater distribution of the Army around Australia.
- Reduction in use of external contractors: Too much of the core business of the ADF is contracted out. This is often a false economy that reduces the ability of the Army to react to unexpected challenges.
- Expanded air & sea defence capability: The Army should have expanded capability to provide defence against aircraft and shipping. This would take the form of mobile surface to air and anti-ship missile systems along with mobile search and acquisition capability. Such a system provides a highly cost-effective and survivable defence alternative to surface ships which we recommend be phased out.
- Emergency service integration: ADF resources in general and the Army in particular should be linked in with civil emergency services with shared command posts in each State and routine joint operations. This would see ADF resources such as Blackhawk or Chinook helicopters and ASLAV vehicles called in to assist with fire and flood disasters as they unfold. Ideally the ADF and emergency services would share an integrated communication platform.
- Reduced Cost Cutting: We believe the Army is already fairly efficient. While there is always room for improvement we don't believe there are large cost savings to be made, especially while the Operation Slipper continues in Afghansistan. The multi-billion dollar savings can be achieved through cutbacks to the Navy and changes with Air Force aquisitions.
- Improve Conditions: The conditions for ADF personnel could be improved if overall staff
numbers (especially in the Navy) are cut. We propose this be provided as non-cash benefits that personnel cannot take with them if they leave such as:
- Better defence housing.
- 'Company cars'.
- Timeshare-like access to holiday houses, recreational boats, etc.
- Defence funded private travel, including overseas travel to selected destinations in the region.
An ASLAV-25 (Wikipedia). |