CO06047 | The 2006 Quadrennial Defence Review: Implications for Asian Security

The Changing Configuration of Military Power in the Asia Pacific

The changes proposed in the 2006 QDR are actually fairly minimal. There are currently about 40,000 US military personnel stationed in Japan. The recently-concluded agreement between Washington and Tokyo will see 8,000 Marines and about 9,000 of their dependents move from Okinawa to Guam by 2012. Some US forces will remain on Okinawa but will be moved from Futenma to a new location at Camp Schwab. At sea, the 2006 QDR envisages that six aircraft carrier strike groups will be maintained throughout the Pacific and Indian Oceans, along with 60% of the US Navy submarine fleet. While the strategic bomber fleet will be reduced, existing platforms will be fully modernised.

At the same time, however, Japan and Australia, as major regional strategic partners to the US, are now expected to carry a greater share of the security burden. The immediate question for Japan is whether or not she can bear this increased burden. The Japanese Self-Defence Forces is, at least on paper, a fairly impressive organisation. Its air wing maintains a fleet of 130 F-15s, supported by E-2C and E-767 airborne warning and command platforms that significantly add to its air combat capability. But the Japanese do not have their intrinsic mid- air refuelling platforms and this limits Japan’s capacity to project air power very far beyond its shores. The Japanese maritime self-defence forces deploys 39 guided missile destroyers and nine guided missile frigates, and is supported by a small fleet of five logistics support vessels which further limits Japan’s power projection capability.

Australian military power is similarly impressive, at least on paper. The Australian navy can deploy six Collins-class submarines and six Adelaide-class guided missile frigates, but they are supported by just two tankers with replenishment-at-sea capacity. Without friendly countries providing berthing and port facilities to resupply these vessels, the range of these platforms becomes severely limited. The Australian air force stills operate the FB-111, and has the largest fleet of F/A-18s outside of the US. Two squadrons of transport aircraft that can also serve as mid-air refuelling platforms can, on paper, extend the operating range of these platforms quite significantly.

Problems Ahead

What has been missing from the analysis thus far is the likely size of the US military ten years from now. In addition, when the ever-increasing costs of emerging combat platforms are factored in, the picture begins to look grim. Nowhere is this clearer than in combat aircraft. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, for instance, has become virtually unaffordable. Its per unit cost has risen to US$82 million, representing a 33% increase since 2001. The United States Air Force had initially envisaged acquiring 1763 F-35s, but based on the rate of cost increases, even before the aircraft is deployable, just how many the US military can eventually afford is anyone’s guess.

If increasing cost is becoming a major problem for the US, it may become catastrophic for other countries. Moreover, turning to alternative non-US sources of modern weapons systems may not resolve the issue of spiralling costs. The Eurofighter, considered by many as second only to the F-22 Raptor, is not cheap. The UK’s programme to acquire 232 Eurofighters, originally estimated to cost US$10 billion, has risen to US$22.7 billion. The Dassault Rafale is estimated to cost $66.5 million for the basic aircraft and almost $145 million with its complete suite of sensors and weapons. Russian aircraft such as the MiG-35 or Su-37 claim to be comparable in performance and lethality to the latest US or NATO combat aircraft and cost significantly less, but going Russian entails other problems. For countries who have traditionally relied on NATO technological standards, migrating to Russian standards requires fundamental shifts in logistical practices and operational doctrines, among other things, to make taking on the cheaper Russian option militarily viable. So, for countries that want to maintain its reliance on NATO technological standards, this will likely mean shrinking armed forces at least in terms of the number of combat platforms that can eventually be deployed.