tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/military-budget-36736/articlesMilitary budget – The Conversation2020-06-29T12:34:45Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1416292020-06-29T12:34:45Z2020-06-29T12:34:45ZMorrison announces repurposing of defence money to fight increasing cyber threats<p>The federal government is repurposing $1.35 billion of its planned defence spending over a decade to meet the increasing threat of cyber attacks on Australia.</p>
<p>The announcement follows Scott Morrison recently revealing “a sophisticated state-based cyber actor” was targeting “Australian organisations across a range of sectors including all levels of government, industry, political organisations, education, health, essential service providers and operators of other critical infrastructure”.</p>
<p>Although the government has refused to identify the state-based actor, it is known to be China.</p>
<p>The repurposed funds will boost capabilities provided through the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Cyber Security Centre to identify and ward off cyber attacks.</p>
<p>The government says the funding will enable more threats to be identified, and the activities of more foreign cybercriminals to be disrupted. It will facilitate partnerships between industry and government to help deal with the problem.</p>
<p>A large slice of the money - $470 million - will go to expanding the workforce devoted to fighting the cyber threat. More than 500 new jobs will be created within ASD.</p>
<p>Announcing the initiative, Morrison said malicious cyber activity against Australia was increasing in frequency, scale and sophistication.</p>
<p>“The federal government’s top priority is protecting our nation’s economy, national security and sovereignty. Malicious cyber activity undermines that,” he said.</p>
<p>Some $359.5 million of the spending is over the forward estimates.</p>
<p>The package aims to strengthen protection and resilience at all levels - from individuals and small businesses through to the providers of critical services.</p>
<p>Giving an example of the planned enhanced capability, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds said “this package will enable ASD and Australia’s major telecommunications providers to prevent malicious cyber activity from reaching millions of Australians by blocking known malicious websites and computer viruses at speed”. </p>
<p>She said the package “is one part of our $15 billion investment in cyber and information warfare capabilities that will form part of Defence’s 2020 Force Structure Plan to address the rapidly evolving cyber threat landscape”.</p>
<p>Among the funding to develop capabilities to disrupt and defeat malicious cyber activity there will be:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>more than $31 million to enhance the ability of ASD to disrupt cybercrime offshore, and provide assistance to federal, state and territory law enforcement agencies</p></li>
<li><p>more than $35 million to deliver a new cyber threat-sharing platform, so industry and government can share intelligence about malicious cyber activity, and quickly block threats</p></li>
<li><p>more than $12 million which will help ASD and major telecommunications providers to prevent malicious cyber activity from reaching millions of Australians by speedily blocking malicious websites and computer viruses. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Other measures will improve understanding of malicious cyber activity so emerging threats can be identified and dealt with faster. There will be:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>more than $118 million for ASD to expand its data science and intelligence capabilities</p></li>
<li><p>more than $62 million to deliver a national situational awareness capability to better enable ASD to understand and respond to cyber threats on a national scale. This includes informing vulnerable sectors of the economy about threats and the best ways to mitigate them</p></li>
<li><p>more than $20 million to establish research laboratories to better understand threats to emerging technology. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Other spending details will be announced later.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141629/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>$1.35 billion of defence spending will be repurposed to meet the increasing threat of cyber attacks on Australia.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/861732017-10-24T00:12:46Z2017-10-24T00:12:46ZJapan’s vote for Abe could worsen prospects for peace with North Korea, China<p>Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe gambled by calling a snap election – and he has won big.</p>
<p>Voters handed Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party a sweeping victory in the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/23/what-now-for-japan-after-abes-landslide-election-victory">Oct. 22 balloting</a> for Japan’s House of Representatives.</p>
<p>The call for the election came in late September after North Korea had just fired another test missile, with its <a href="https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20170915/p2g/00m/0dm/012000c">longest delivery system yet</a>. Over the past months, North Korea has tested six missiles, with each test either falling into the Japan Sea or passing over Japan to land in the Pacific. This latest missile flew over Japan’s northernmost island of Hokkaido before <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/asia/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html">falling into the Pacific Ocean</a>. North Korea’s leader, Kim Jung Un, used strong threats after this missile test, saying that he hoped to see Japan sink into the sea. Abe and his hawkish, conservative coalition have been attempting to rebuild Japan’s military capabilities and to scrap its WWII-era constitution that prohibits aggression. </p>
<p>Based on my <a href="http://web.bryant.edu/%7Enfreiner">research in Japanese politics</a>, I believe the party’s electoral victory spells trouble for peace in Asia.</p>
<h2>Re-arming the military</h2>
<p>Abe’s agenda has taken shape in a number of ways. In August, his minister of defense submitted a historic budget request that violates a decades-old unwritten principle. The principle is for <a href="http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_budget/pdf/281025.pdf">Japan’s defense budget</a> to never be larger than 1 percent of GDP. This principle was part of the commitment made after WWII to forever <a href="https://www.loc.gov/law/help/japan-constitution/article9.php">renounce military aggression</a>.</p>
<p>The new budget request is a whopping 5,255 billion yen in military spending (US$48.1 billion) or 2.5 percent of Japan’s GDP for fiscal year 2018. The request includes new land-based missile defense systems to monitor space and provide auto-warnings for missile launches. This technology would assist in detecting potential missile launches from North Korea, and could theoretically intercept them. </p>
<p>In September, the Japanese Navy launched the ship “Myoko” that will patrol the Japan Sea between Japan and Korea. It will guard against potential missile fires by North Korea with <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/08/30/national/politics-diplomacy/north-korean-missile-threat-grows-japans-defensive-capabilities-fail-keep/#.We4hPmVh3eR">anti-missile</a> defense capabilities, identical to those of the U.S. Navy. At the launch, <a href="http://japan.kantei.go.jp/97_abe/statement/201709/_00014.html">Abe said</a> that the “increasingly severe security environment” posed by North Korea and China must be “squarely faced” by Japan. He referred to the environment awaiting the Myoko’s crew as a “raging sea.”</p>
<p>Many in Japan anticipate the role of Japan’s military will soon change to respond to North Korea. Increasing military spending in the budget now may lead to future increases and spending on more offensive weapons. For example, two years ago, Japan and the U.S. <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-japan-announce-new-security-agreement-1430146806">renegotiated their security alliance</a>. Japan agreed to come to the aid of its most important ally if the U.S. or one of its allies were to come under attack. A discussion on changing the Japanese Constitution’s WWII prohibition of aggression is likely to be revived. </p>
<h2>Destabilizing the region</h2>
<p>The requested increase in military spending in August had an immediate effect on the region and possibilities for peaceful relations. </p>
<p>A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted China’s concern over the new plan and accused Japan of <a href="https://thediplomat.com/2017/08/whats-in-japans-record-2018-defense-budget-request">inflating the threat</a> posed by China in order to take a more offensive stance in Asia.</p>
<p>The relationship between China and Japan is already tense. The two nations are engaged in a dispute over the Senkaku Diaoyutai islands in the East China Sea. This disagreement flared up last summer when China <a href="https://intpolicydigest.org/2016/08/01/senkaku-islands-dispute/">stepped up military activity</a> near the islands. Then in February, President Trump <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/trump-assures-abe-disputed-east-china-sea-islands-170210201048825.html">reaffirmed the U.S. commitment</a> to come to Japan’s aid with conventional and nuclear weapons in a statement signed by both leaders. </p>
<p>Abe’s victory confirms that Japanese people take these threats seriously. Their fears may play into a developing brinksmanship between Japan and North Korea that could, in my opinion, implicate the United States. </p>
<p>Trump will visit Asia in November, and his stay in Japan includes a visit with Japanese who were abducted by North Korea during the 1970s and ‘80s. Doing so may open old wounds with North Korea – the <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/09/20/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-welcomes-trumps-rebuke-targeting-north-koreas-past-abductions-japanese/#.We3wUIpJneQ">stories of abduction</a> provoke strong feelings for the Japanese people who will be reminded of North Korea’s past offenses. Prospects for peaceful resolution with North Korea are becoming more slim, strengthening Abe’s case for building out Japan’s offensive capabilities.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86173/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole L Freiner does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Support for asserting Japan’s military might in response to threats from North Korea and China may destabilize the region.Nicole L Freiner, Associate Professor, Political Science, Bryant UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/609052017-06-14T02:22:57Z2017-06-14T02:22:57ZWhat went wrong with the F-35, Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171516/original/file-20170530-23718-wvqgj1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=175%2C462%2C2824%2C1805&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Everything to everyone – or is the F-35 a big expense for not much benefit?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/502787/hill-afb-in-midst-of-robust-f-35-preparation/">U.S. Air Force/Alex R. Lloyd</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The F-35 was billed as a fighter jet that could do almost everything the U.S. military desired, serving the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy – and even <a href="https://www.f35.com/global/participation/united-kingdom">Britain’s Royal Air Force and Royal Navy</a> – all in one aircraft design. It’s supposed to replace and improve upon several current – and aging – aircraft types with widely different missions. It’s <a href="https://www.f35.com/">marketed as a cost-effective, powerful multi-role fighter airplane</a> significantly better than anything potential adversaries could build in the next two decades. But it’s turned out to be none of those things.</p>
<p>Officially begun in 2001, with roots extending back to the late 1980s, the F-35 program is nearly a decade behind schedule, and has <a href="http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/dod/2015f35jsf.pdf">failed to meet many of its original design requirements</a>. It’s also become the <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/12/investing/donald-trump-lockheed-martin-f-35-tweet/index.html">most expensive defense program in world history</a>, at <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/31/how-dods-15-trillion-f-35-broke-the-air-force.html">around US$1.5 trillion</a> before the fighter is <a href="http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/24/f-35-fly-until-2070-six-years-longer-than-planned/82224282/">phased out in 2070</a>.</p>
<p>The unit cost per airplane, above $100 million, is <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-donald-trump-was-right-the-f-35s-costs-are-out-control-18826">roughly twice what was promised early on</a>. Even after President Trump lambasted the cost of the program in February, the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/">price per plane dropped just $7 million</a> – less than 7 percent.</p>
<p>And yet, the U.S. is still throwing huge sums of money at the project. Essentially, the Pentagon has declared the F-35 “<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-60-minutes-david-martin/">too big to fail</a>.” As a retired member of the U.S. Air Force and current university professor of finance who has been involved in and studied military aviation and acquisitions, I find the F-35 to be one of the greatest boondoggles in recent military purchasing history.</p>
<h2>Forget what’s already spent</h2>
<p>The Pentagon is trying to argue that just because taxpayers have flushed <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-18/f-35-s-grotesque-overruns-are-now-past-pentagon-s-chief-says">more than $100 billion down the proverbial toilet so far</a>, we must continue to throw billions more down that same toilet. That violates the most elementary financial principles of capital budgeting, which is the method companies and governments use to decide on investments. So-called sunk costs, the money already paid on a project, should never be a factor in investment decisions. Rather, spending should be based on <a href="http://leepublish.typepad.com/strategicthinking/2015/03/sunk-cost-fallacy.html">how it will add value in the future</a>.</p>
<p>Keeping the F-35 program alive is not only a gross waste in itself: Its funding could be spent on defense programs that are really useful and needed for national defense, such as <a href="http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/07/08/pentagon-needs-more-money-counter-islamic-state-drones/86867452/">anti-drone systems to defend U.S. troops</a>.</p>
<p>Part of the enormous cost has come as a result of an effort to share aircraft design and replacement parts across different branches of the military. In 2013, a study by the RAND Corporation found that it would have been cheaper if the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy had simply <a href="http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/MG1225/RAND_MG1225.pdf">designed and developed separate and more specialized aircraft</a> to meet their specific operational requirements.</p>
<h2>Not living up to top billing</h2>
<p>The company building the F-35 has made grand claims. Lockheed Martin said the plane would be <a href="http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/66855/lockheed-touts-f_22%2C-jsf-at-s%27pore-show-%28feb-22%29.html">far better than current aircraft</a> – “four times more effective” in air-to-air combat, “eight times more effective” in air-to-ground combat and “three times more effective” in recognizing and suppressing an enemy’s air defenses. It would, in fact, be “<a href="http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Lockheed_Martin_F22_and_F35_5th_Gen_Revolution_In_Military_Aviation.html">second only to the F-22 in air superiority</a>.” In addition, the F-35 was to have better range and require less logistics support than current military aircraft. The Pentagon is still calling the F-35 “<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170530194416/http://www.jsf.mil/">the most affordable, lethal, supportable, and survivable aircraft ever to be used</a>.”</p>
<p>But that’s not how the plane has turned out. In January 2015, mock combat testing pitted the F-35 against an F-16, one of the fighters it is slated to replace. The F-35A was flown “clean” with empty weapon bays and without any drag-inducing and heavy externally mounted weapons or fuel tanks. The F-16D, a heavier and somewhat less capable training version of the mainstay F-16C, was further encumbered with two 370-gallon external wing-mounted fuel tanks. </p>
<p>In spite of its significant advantages, the F-35A’s test pilot noted that the F-35A was <a href="https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb">less maneuverable and markedly inferior to the F-16D in a visual-range dogfight</a>.</p>
<h2>Stealth over power</h2>
<p>One key reason the F-35 doesn’t possess the world-beating air-to-air prowess promised, and is likely <a href="http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best/">not even adequate when compared with its current potential adversaries</a>, is that it was designed first and foremost to be a stealthy airplane. This requirement has taken precedence over maneuverability, and likely above its overall air-to-air lethality. The Pentagon and especially the Air Force seem to be <a href="http://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/613385/us-marine-corps-moves-forward-with-f-35-transition/">relying almost exclusively</a> on the F-35’s stealth capabilities to succeed at its missions.</p>
<p>Like the F-117 and F-22, the F-35’s stealth capability <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm">greatly reduces, but does not eliminate, its radar cross-section</a>, the signal that radar receivers see bouncing back off an airplane. The plane looks smaller on radar – perhaps like a bird rather than a plane – but is not invisible. The F-35 is designed to be stealthy primarily in the X-band, the radar frequency range most commonly used for targeting in air-to-air combat.</p>
<p>In other radar frequencies, the F-35 is not so stealthy, making it vulnerable to being tracked and shot down using current – and even obsolete – weapons. As far back as 1999 the same type of stealth technology was not able to prevent a U.S. Air Force F-117 flying over Kosovo from being located, tracked and <a href="http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html">shot down using an out-of-date Soviet radar and surface-to-air missile system</a>. In the nearly two decades since, that incident has been studied in depth not only by the U.S., but also by potential adversaries seeking weaknesses in passive radar stealth aircraft.</p>
<p>Of course, radar is not the only way to locate and target an aircraft. One can also use an aircraft’s infrared emissions, which are created by friction-generated heat as it flies through the air, along with its hot engines. Several nations, particularly the Russians, have excellent passive <a href="http://aviationweek.com/technology/new-radars-irst-strengthen-stealth-detection-claims">infrared search and tracking systems</a>, that can locate and target enemy aircraft with great precision – sometimes using lasers to measure exact distances, but without needing radar.</p>
<p>It’s also very common in air-to-air battles for opposing planes to come close enough that their pilots can see each other. The F-35 is as visible as any other aircraft its size.</p>
<h2>Analysts weigh in</h2>
<p>Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon say the F-35’s superiority over its rivals lies in its ability to remain undetected, giving it “<a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-f-35-tri-service-jet-must-outfly-critics-2012dec01-story.html">first look, first shot, first kill</a>.” Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Sukhoi-Su-35S-Flanker-Generation-Super-Manoeuvrability/dp/1903630169/ref=asap_bc">a marketing and publicity gimmick</a>” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N1Z_DuF87Sc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Fighter plane expert Pierre Sprey is a harsh critic of the F-35.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Other critics have been even harsher. Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “<a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/40-years-of-the-fighter-mafia/">fighter mafia</a>” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/blog/extended-interview-pierre-sprey">inherently a terrible airplane</a>” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/blog/extended-interview-pierre-sprey">the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21</a>, a 1950s Soviet fighter design. Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. … <a href="https://robertfdorr.blogspot.com/2015/08/hitler-hillary-time-travel-and-f-22.html">It’s that bad</a>.”</p>
<h2>How did we get here?</h2>
<p>How did the F-35 go from its conception as the most technologically advanced, do-it-all military aircraft in the world to a virtual turkey? Over the decades-long effort to meet a real military need for better aircraft, the F-35 program is the result of the merging or combination of several other separate and diverse projects into a set of requirements for an airplane that is trying to be everything to everybody. </p>
<p>In combat the difference between winning and losing is often not very great. With second place all too often meaning death, the Pentagon seeks to provide warriors with the best possible equipment. The best tools are those that are tailor-made to address specific missions and types of combat. Seeking to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/28/defense-spending-in-the-u-s-in-four-charts/">accomplish more tasks with less money</a>, defense planners looked for ways to economize.</p>
<p>For a fighter airplane, funding decisions become a balancing act of procuring not just the best aircraft possible, but enough of them to make an effective force. This has lead to the creation of so-called “multi-role” fighter aircraft, capable both in air-to-air combat and against ground targets. Where trade-offs have to happen, designers of most multi-role fighters emphasize aerial combat strength, reducing air-to-ground capabilities. With the F-35, it appears designers created an airplane that doesn’t do either mission exceptionally well. They have made the plane an inelegant jack-of-all-trades, but master of none – at great expense, both in the past and, apparently, <a href="http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article151096902.html">well into the future</a>.</p>
<p>I believe the F-35 program should be immediately cancelled; the technologies and systems developed for it should be used in more up-to-date and cost-effective aircraft designs. Specifically, the F-35 should be replaced with a series of new designs targeted toward the specific mission requirements of the individual branches of the armed forces, in lieu of a single aircraft design trying to be everything to everyone.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60905/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael P. Hughes owns shares of an exchange traded fund that includes shares of Lockheed Martin along with many other aerospace and defense companies. </span></em></p>The most expensive defense program in world history has yielded a multi-role fighter plane that is an inelegant jack-of-all-trades, but master of none.Michael P. Hughes, Professor of Finance, Francis Marion UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/747122017-04-05T14:54:52Z2017-04-05T14:54:52ZSouth Africa’s army is in steady decline and nothing’s being done to fix it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162694/original/image-20170327-3308-1koppcw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">South Africa's army currently has about 80,000 active personnel.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Spc. Taryn Hagerman, US. Army Africa </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The South African National Defence Force (SANDF) is in a “critical state of decline” and is largely incapable of carrying out its constitutional duties.</p>
<p>This sobering fact is set out in the <a href="http://www.gov.za/documents/south-african-defence-review-2014">Defence Review</a>, South Africa’s new defence policy finalised in March 2014. The Review noted that the army couldn’t afford its main operating systems, was unable to meet standing defence commitments, lacked critical mobility and was “too poorly equipped and funded to execute the widening spectrum of tasks to the desired level”. It concluded that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>left unchecked, and at present funding levels, (the decline of the SANDF) will severely compromise and further fragment South Africa’s defence capability.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Three years later the situation remains the same.</p>
<p>The South African constitution says that the SANDF’s <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10246029.2015.1124794">primary function</a> is to protect the country’s territorial integrity, provide border security and to support peacemaking operations in Africa.</p>
<p>Currently the army has about <a href="http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36949:sandf-not-meeting-staffing-targets&catid=111:SA%20Defence&Itemid=242">80,000 active personnel</a>. <a href="http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=south-africa">Global Firepower</a> ranks the SANDF’s military capabilities and available firepower 5th in Africa and 46th in the world.</p>
<p>Over the past two decades the SANDF has been sent to <a href="http://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/sa-soldiers-applauded-peace-keeping-efforts-africa">peacekeeping missions</a> in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. There was also the <a href="http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/200-SA-soldiers-took-on-3-000-rebels-SANDF-20130325">questionable deployment</a> to the Central African Republic in 2013 where 15 soldiers lost their lives. In addition, the navy has been involved in protecting South Africa’s territorial waters and maritime interests as well as contributing to the <a href="http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25142:south-african-navy-helps-catch-pirates&catid=108:maritime-security&Itemid=233">fight against piracy</a>.</p>
<p>Over the years thousands of soldiers have also been deployed to protect the country’s borders. And the army has taken part in the crime fighting <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2015-09-07-the-numbers-behind-operation-fiela">Operation Fiela</a>.</p>
<h2>Under funded</h2>
<p>The army’s dire situation has arisen because the government hasn’t provided sufficient funds for the SANDF over the past two decades.</p>
<p>In 1994 the <a href="http://www.gov.za/documents/south-african-defence-review-2014">spending on defence</a> was around 3% of the GDP. This declined steadily to 1.54% of the GDP in 2004–5 and around 1.2% of the GDP since 2014. The <a href="http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=39213:mapisa-nqakula-wishes-for-a-defence-budget-that-is-two-percent-of-gdp&catid=111:sa-defence&Itemid=242">minister of defence believes</a> that a defence budget of about 2% of the GDP – <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS">in line with countries</a> such as Turkey, France and United Kingdom – would help it rebuild its capacity.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162702/original/image-20170327-3276-1uxbom5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162702/original/image-20170327-3276-1uxbom5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162702/original/image-20170327-3276-1uxbom5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162702/original/image-20170327-3276-1uxbom5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162702/original/image-20170327-3276-1uxbom5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162702/original/image-20170327-3276-1uxbom5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162702/original/image-20170327-3276-1uxbom5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">South African soldiers on patrol in Bangui, Central African Republic in
2013.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Luc Gnago</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The cost of the SANDF <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10246029.2015.1124794">taking part in peace missions</a> isn’t an issue as these are covered by funding from the National Treasury and the Department of International Relations and Cooperation. The challenge is to fund <a href="http://www.thebrenthurstfoundation.org/Files/Brenthurst_Commisioned_Reports/Brenthurst-paper-201107.pdf">“day-to-day maintenance”</a> including equipment, infrastructure, training, administration and force preparation.</p>
<p>In particular, the SANDF’s infrastructure is falling apart. In March 2014, <a href="http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33889">only 38% of the army’s facilities</a> and only half of the soldiers’ living quarters were in decent conditions. Some of the bases are in such a poor state that they are “unsuitable for human habitation”.</p>
<p>The Defence Review stressed the need for immediate intervention to stop the critical decline and </p>
<blockquote>
<p>create a firm foundation to … develop a sustainable defence capability appropriate to South Africa’s international status, strategic posture and its inescapable continental leadership role.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In addition, it warned that “even with an immediate intervention, it could take at least five years to arrest the decline and another five years to develop a limited and sustainable defence capability.” </p>
<p>During the intervening three years the government has shown no urgency to help the SANDF develop into a capable force. There’s been no significant increase in funding for the army since 2014.</p>
<p>The writers of the Defence Review operated under instructions from then Defence Minister Lindiwe Sisulu to <a href="https://www.africandefence.net/plan-b-for-south-africas-military/">“pursue a long-term framework”</a>. This was based on the assumption the government would provide the necessary funds to implement the review’s recommendations. Since then Sisulu has been moved to another portfolio and the army’s budget has not gone up.</p>
<p>Today the SANDF “doesn’t have the <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2017/03/14/SA-army-too-broke-to-prevent-cross-border-crime">money or manpower</a> to step up security of the country’s porous borders.” According to the Minister of Defence, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula</p>
<blockquote>
<p>there are huge expectations from us but budget cuts remain a problem.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>According to the latest budget figures, <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2017-02-23-defence-budget-under-siege/">spending on Defence and State Security</a> will amount to R54bn in 2017-18, up from R52bn in 2016. In 2018-19, spending is set to increase to R56bn and R60bn in 2019-20. </p>
<p>But these increases are not enough to arrest the decline, let alone rebuild the capacity of the SANDF and implement the review’s recommendations.</p>
<p>Recently, President Jacob Zuma, <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2017/03/14/SA-army-too-broke-to-prevent-cross-border-crime">surprised to hear about the army’s financial woes</a>, encouraged Mapisa-Nqakula to bring the issue up at a cabinet meeting.</p>
<p>This raises the question whether he even read the 341-page review document. </p>
<h2>Neglect likely to continue</h2>
<p>Lacklustre economic growth means that no significant budget increases are likely in the foreseeable future. In a challenging environment, the government and the Department of Defence have two options: find extra money or scale down. Both options are set out <a href="http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/dfencereview_2014.pdf">in the review:</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>There must be either a greater budget allocation or, a significantly scaled-down level of ambition and commitment which is aligned to the current budget allocation. In short, there are two strategic options available for government: budget must be determined by policy or, budget must drive policy.‘</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Defence analyst <a href="https://www.africandefence.net/plan-b-for-south-africas-military/">John Stupart argues</a> that South Africa doesn’t have a plan B. At the same time, the policy that exists is “simply unachievable”.</p>
<p>But something will have to change, and quickly. Stupart argues that South Africa’s strategic needs could be met by a smaller, well trained and highly capable defence force equipped with modern weapons and tactical know-how. The alternative is that a large, over-staffed and badly trained military slides “into decline and, ultimately, obsolescence”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74712/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Savo Heleta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>South Africa’s army is in a dire situation because the government hasn’t provided sufficient funding over the past two decades, hampering its ability to fulfil its duty.Savo Heleta, Manager, Internationalisation at Home and Research, Nelson Mandela UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/740162017-03-13T19:52:39Z2017-03-13T19:52:39ZWhat’s the purpose of President Trump’s Navy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160361/original/image-20170310-19266-1baq8bj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The USS Gerald Ford in Newport News, Virginia, cost nearly $13 billion to build. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Steve Helber</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Trump visited Newport News at the beginning of March to deliver a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/politics/donald-trump-navy-speech-virginia/">speech</a> aboard the soon-to-be commissioned USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. It provided a timely reminder of his campaign <a href="http://conservativetribune.com/what-trump-promised-navy/">pledge</a> that he would increase the size of the fleet from the current figure of 272 to 350 ships over the next three decades. This is significantly more than the Obama-era plans to increase the fleet to <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article107782747.html">308 ships.</a></p>
<p>How this decision fits with any broader grand strategy is <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-great-magic-numbers-challenge-18771">unclear</a>. Critics have debated whether Trump has <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/31/trumps-grand-strategic-train-wreck/">one.</a> Indeed, a recent New York Times story suggested the growth of the military may simply be for the purpose of possessing raw military power rather than part of any serious <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/world/americas/donald-trump-us-military.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0">strategizing.</a> </p>
<p>Trump’s decision to focus on building a more powerful global Navy, however, fits with a longstanding American strategic tradition. It dates back to naval officer and historian Alfred Thayer Mahan’s classic <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Influence-History-1660-1783-Military-Weapons/dp/0486255093/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1488581457&sr=8-1&keywords=Alfred+Thayer+Mahan">“The Influence of Seapower on History</a>,” which was written on the cusp of America’s emergence as a global power at the end of the 19th century. In Mahan’s vision, a great Navy would promote America’s commercial interests at home and abroad. It was, and for many still <a href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100743820">is</a>, the foundation of any “grand strategy.” </p>
<p>But a key question remains: Does Trump’s specified goal of 350 ships meet the needs of the nation in the 21st century? How does this fit into a strategic vision for U.S. security? </p>
<h2>Why 350 ships?</h2>
<p>The new budget proposal reportedly calls for increasing the 2018 Defense Budget <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/trump-budget-military.html?_r=0">by US$54 billion.</a> This won’t itself pay for an ambitious expansion of the Navy. The USS Gerald R. Ford alone cost about <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-navys-new-13-billion-aircraft-carrier-will-dominate-the-seas-2016-03-09">$13 billion</a>. It will, therefore, take many years of spending to move building projects forward. But as the Trump administration’s plans, if enacted, make clear, buying more ships will mean cuts to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/27/politics/trump-budget-proposal/">foreign aid, environmental protection and a series of regulatory agencies.</a> These are choices that have been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/02/28/us/politics/ap-us-trump-diplomatic-cutbacks.html?_r=0">roundly criticized</a> by former military officials and senior policymakers. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160362/original/image-20170310-19247-j659pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160362/original/image-20170310-19247-j659pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160362/original/image-20170310-19247-j659pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160362/original/image-20170310-19247-j659pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160362/original/image-20170310-19247-j659pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160362/original/image-20170310-19247-j659pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160362/original/image-20170310-19247-j659pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160362/original/image-20170310-19247-j659pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trump visiting the Newport News Shipbuilding in early March to announce his plans for the Navy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Steve Helber</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Moreover, there are few civilian officials available to answer the question of what purpose the Navy’s growth serves. That is because there is currently a dearth of administrative appointments to key leadership positions in the Navy and the Department of Defense. So there is no evident strategy to justify this new target.</p>
<p>The man <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/314491-why-theres-only-one-choice-for-trumps-navy-secretary">initially anointed by the Washington rumor mill</a> as the next secretary of the Navy was ex-congressman Randy Forbes, formerly of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces of the House Arms Services Committee and a vocal supporter of American naval power. </p>
<p>Forbes was passed over in favor of Phillip Bilden, a businessmen with ties to both the Army and the Navy. Bilden, however, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/navy-secretary-nominee-withdraws_us_58b36fa7e4b0a8a9b7833b52?whi9ajh5kuj6ob6gvi&">withdrew from consideration</a> when it became clear that ethics rules would require him to disentangle himself from his extensive business holdings. The vacuum remains unfilled. Now, in a strange turn of events, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-trump-considers-two-candidates-for-navy-secretary-1488928814">Forbes is once again in the running</a>. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the preferences of the new Secretary of Defense General Mattis and National Security Adviser General H.R. McMaster regarding the size, shape and purposes of the Navy are unknown. </p>
<p>Both are well-read, broadly educated, deep thinkers on U.S. and global security. But both participated in ground wars in the Middle East. They are therefore assumed to be advocates of land forces, not naval power. In the past, they have focused on conventional wars, counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, rather than maritime challenges. </p>
<h2>The Navy’s view</h2>
<p>Even in normal periods, fleet design is a complicated bureaucratic dance with budgets, internal procedures and external interventions from Congress to be negotiated. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160557/original/image-20170313-9637-s5dxjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160557/original/image-20170313-9637-s5dxjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160557/original/image-20170313-9637-s5dxjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160557/original/image-20170313-9637-s5dxjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160557/original/image-20170313-9637-s5dxjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1073&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160557/original/image-20170313-9637-s5dxjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1073&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160557/original/image-20170313-9637-s5dxjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1073&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ronald Reagan was a big Navy fan.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ron Edmonds/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In times of crisis or great political change, the strong preferences of presidents, their advisers and the civilian leaders or the military services can play a decisive role. Most famously, <a href="http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/1990/1990%20mearsheimer.pdf">Secretary of the Navy John Lehman,</a> at the behest of President Reagan, championed a 600-ship Navy to counter the rapidly growing Soviet fleet and threats to Europe, the Far East and elsewhere.</p>
<p>Even before candidate Trump shined the spotlight on the Navy, the service was, of course, planning for the future. </p>
<p>The Navy released its latest vision statement, <a href="http://www.navy.mil/cno/docs/cno_stg.pdf">“A Design for Maritime Superiority,”</a> in January 2016. It resoundingly defended the ideal that the United States is a maritime nation and a premier naval power, specifically naming China and Russia as potential aggressors on the high seas. It didn’t specify a target fleet size although the documents could be construed as justifying the sort of overall budget growth proposed by Trump. </p>
<p>Still Congress, forcefully egged on by Representative Forbes, who felt the Obama administration and the Navy itself were <a href="https://news.usni.org/2014/10/01/randy-forbes-cno-greenert-navy-desperately-needs-strategy">neglecting</a> naval strategy, mandated three independent studies to examine the future fleet. Interestingly, when completed, none of the three alternatives proposes anything like a 350-ship fleet by 2030, despite errant reports to the contrary. </p>
<p>Recent news reports suggesting that the alternative fleet architecture proposed by the think tank <a href="https://www.mitre.org/publications">the MITRE Corp.</a> called for <a href="http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/414-ships-no-lcs-mitres-alternative-navy/">over 400 ships</a> misinterpreted the study. In fact, the MITRE authors recommend a far smaller fleet because they explicitly recognize the costs of building up to such a large number.</p>
<p>All three studies focus on new war-fighting concepts such as <a href="https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/navy-fleet-embracing-distributed-operations-as-a-way-to-regain-sea-control">distributed maritime operations</a>, new types of platforms including unmanned systems and new technologies including rail guns (that can repeatedly launch a projectile <a href="http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/navy-wants-fire-its-ridiculously-strong-railgun-ocean">at more than 5,000 miles per hour</a>). Capacity and fleet size are obviously not the same thing, despite the current focus on numbers of ships.</p>
<p>The point is that analysis underpinning the Navy’s own vision for the future is different from that of the new president. </p>
<p>To date, the president has concentrated on the overall number of ships while the Navy and the congressionally mandated studies focused on war-fighting capabilities and war-fighting concepts. What is missing from the president’s target of a 350-ship Navy is an underlying strategy – one that links what is proverbially called the “ways, means and ends” necessary to defend American interests on the high seas. </p>
<p>Working outward, the national security community, the public and indeed America’s allies and adversaries need to understand the logic underlying any historic naval buildup. A clear statement regarding the primary threats facing the U.S., the types of adversaries it will face and the nature of future conflict would help explain why the American taxpayer is investing so much national treasure in the military services. </p>
<p>After all, if Russia is not the enemy, and we don’t need a big Navy to defeat the Islamic State, then why spend so much? </p>
<h2>‘Military operations other than war’</h2>
<p>So far, Trump has not offered an answer for the nation to rally behind and to reassure his critics. </p>
<p>In its absence, experts have sought reassurance in the president’s fragmentary and sporadic pronouncements to support their own vision. Neo-isolationists have <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-24/nigel-farage-at-cpac-brexit-trump-show-isolationism-is-winning">cheered his efforts</a> to close American borders. Others have warmed to the notion that he has suggested our allies assume <a href="http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/03/europes-security-dilemma/">more responsibility</a> for their own defense. Even proponents of old-fashioned primacy have sought luster by interpreting the president’s defense buildup as <a href="http://www.fpri.org/article/2016/01/detached-primacy-musings-trump-doctrine/">a return to the unilateralist days</a> of American military prowess through intervention. </p>
<p>Our own research suggests that the truth is that none of these grand visions may apply. The Navy, and indeed the other military services, face a growing demand for their services. They are now being asked to perform an increasing number of functions that are <a href="http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/History/Monographs/Other_Than_War.pdf">not associated with fighting wars</a>. </p>
<p>The military even has a term for it: “MOOTW” (<a href="http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/jp-doctrine/jp3_07.pdf">military operations other than war</a>). And the U.S. Navy’s MOOTW ranges from conventional war-fighting against other countries’ navies to policing the globe against pirates, drug flows and the smuggling of nuclear materials, humanitarian assistance and even fighting Ebola in Africa. These activities consume much of the Navy’s time. And their increasing demands require increased resources. Military budgets therefore often reflect the requirements entailed in providing these services as much as the need to conform to any one image.</p>
<p>Of course, congressional democrats may yet scuttle plans for an enlarged Navy. Alternatively, the president may move beyond discussing discrete missions to a more coherent grand strategy – perhaps tutored by his new senior military appointments – that justifies acquisition decisions. </p>
<p>The types of ships (and aircraft, and unmanned systems and equipment) purchased in the coming years will make sense only if they are employed in an operationally coherent manner. Only then will the American public be able to judge if the trade-offs made to fund such an enterprise were worth it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74016/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Reich receives funding from The Gerda Henkel Foundation</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Dombrowski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Does the president’s specified goal of 350 ships meet the needs of the nation in the 21st century? The answer is not yet clear.Simon Reich, Professor in The Division of Global Affairs and The Department of Political Science, Rutgers University - NewarkPeter Dombrowski, Professor, Strategic Research Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, US Naval War CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.