Login
iscover
The year 2024 was big for Australia’s Defence and national security debate and defence industry. In this top five, we will cover the most popular insight stories of the year.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
In 2024, Defence Connect continues to build on its mission to provide timely and reliable analysis, thought leadership, and informed discussion on Australia’s national security landscape. Since the introduction of the daily Insight bulletin in 2019, it has served as a vital platform for contributors engaged in the broader national security debate, delivering timely and insightful perspectives.
The challenges outlined in 2019 have come into sharper focus over the past five years, shaping the complex environment we face today. Nation-state competition has intensified, driven largely by the shifting balance of power between the United States and China, as well as growing tensions between established and emerging regional and global powers. Australia remains a key player in navigating this period of strategic competition.
Adding to these dynamics are the increasingly disruptive “grey zone” tactics employed by state and non-state actors. These tactics undermine national security through unconventional means, including cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, and resource disputes. Compounded by longstanding territorial tensions, the impact of climate change, and threats to water, energy, and resource security, the global landscape demands a concerted and strategic response.
As we move further into the 2020s, we invite individuals and organisations to join the conversation on the pressing national security challenges facing Australia.
For contributions or inquiries, please contact us at
1. Too big to fail? If JP 9102 is no longer fit for purpose, what about Hunter?
The Australian Department of Defence’s recent cancellation of the JP 9102 project, which aimed to establish a sovereign geostationary satellite communications system, has raised questions about the suitability of other major defence initiatives, notably the Hunter Class frigate program. The decision to terminate JP 9102 was based on concerns that a single geostationary system would not meet Australia’s evolving strategic needs, prompting a shift towards a more resilient, multi-orbit approach.
This development has led to scrutiny of the Hunter Class frigate program, one of Australia’s largest defence projects, intended to provide the Royal Australian Navy with advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities. Critics argue that, like JP 9102, the Hunter program may not fully align with current and future strategic requirements, particularly given the rapidly changing nature of maritime threats and technological advancements.
Concerns have been raised about the program’s delays and cost escalations. A recent report highlighted that Australia’s major defence projects are cumulatively running 36 years behind schedule, with the Hunter Class frigates among those experiencing significant delays and increased costs.
The cancellation of JP 9102 underscores the importance of adaptability and resilience in defence capabilities. As the Hunter Class frigate program progresses, it is imperative to assess its alignment with Australia’s strategic needs, ensuring that it remains fit for purpose in an increasingly complex security environment.
In light of these developments, there is a growing call for a comprehensive review of the Hunter program to address potential capability gaps and ensure that the investment delivers the intended strategic outcomes for Australia’s defence posture.
Recent polling indicates that nearly 40 per cent of Australians support the nation adopting an “independent middle power” role in Asia, reflecting a desire for a more autonomous foreign policy.
This perspective aligns with former Prime Minister Paul Keating’s longstanding advocacy for Australia to find security “in” Asia rather than “from” it.
However, embracing such a role necessitates significant commitments. As a middle power, Australia would need to enhance its diplomatic engagement, economic partnerships, and defence capabilities to effectively navigate the complex dynamics of the Asia-Pacific region.
This includes investing in regional relationships, participating in multilateral institutions, and contributing to regional stability and security.
The shift towards an independent middle power stance also requires a nuanced approach to existing alliances, particularly with the United States. Balancing these relationships while asserting greater autonomy presents both opportunities and challenges.
Public support for this strategic direction suggests Australia’s readiness to assume a more proactive and self-reliant role in regional affairs.
However, realising this vision demands a comprehensive national strategy, substantial resource allocation, and a clear understanding of the responsibilities inherent in middle power diplomacy.
As global dynamics evolve, Australia’s pursuit of an independent middle power status will play a crucial role in shaping its future security and prosperity.
3. Mobilisation in a ‘pre-war’ era: Is it time for Australia to begin mobilising the economy?
In light of escalating global tensions, there is a growing debate on whether Australia should proactively mobilise its economy to enhance national security. Historically, during the prelude to World War II, Australia initiated economic mobilisation to support the war effort, a strategy that proved effective in meeting wartime demands.
Mobilisation involves reallocating national resources, including industrial capacity and workforce, to bolster defence capabilities. This process is complex and time-consuming, necessitating early planning and implementation to ensure readiness in the face of potential conflicts.
Advocates argue that early mobilisation would strengthen Australia’s defence posture, ensuring the nation is prepared for unforeseen challenges. They emphasise the importance of a robust domestic defence industry, capable of producing essential military equipment and supplies independently.
Conversely, critics caution against the economic and social implications of such a shift, highlighting the potential strain on the civilian economy and the risks of escalating regional tensions. They advocate for a balanced approach, suggesting that while preparedness is essential, it should not come at the expense of economic stability or diplomatic relations.
The debate underscores the need for a comprehensive national strategy that addresses both defence readiness and economic resilience. As global uncertainties persist, Australia faces critical decisions on how to best safeguard its national interests, weighing the benefits of early economic mobilisation against its potential drawbacks.
4. Being able to walk and chew gum: A strategy for great power conflict in our region
In the context of intensifying great power competition in the Indo-Pacific, questions have been raised about Australia’s need to adopt a multifaceted strategy to address emerging security challenges. This approach, akin to “walking and chewing gum”, involves simultaneously enhancing defence capabilities, strengthening alliances, and engaging in regional diplomacy.
A key component of this strategy is the AUKUS security partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom, focusing on developing advanced military capabilities to promote regional stability.
Additionally, Australia’s 2024 National Defence Strategy emphasises deterrence by denial, prioritising capabilities aimed at thwarting aggression and safeguarding national interests, particularly in its northern approaches.
Recognising the importance of regional engagement, Australia is also investing in relationships with neighbouring countries. This includes initiatives to enhance security cooperation and economic partnerships, acknowledging that regional stability is crucial for national prosperity.
Furthermore, Australia is bolstering its defence industrial base to ensure self-reliance in critical capabilities. This includes significant investments in missile strike and defence systems, aiming to reduce dependency on international supply chains and enhance deterrence capabilities.
By concurrently advancing these initiatives, Australia seeks to navigate the complexities of great power competition, ensuring readiness across multiple domains to effectively address diverse threats in the Indo-Pacific region.
5. We’ve heard of ‘Minimum Viable Capability’, but what about a ‘Minimum Viable Industrial Base’?
The concept of a “Minimum Viable Industry” (MVI) is introduced as an essential approach for Australia to strengthen its domestic defence capabilities. Drawing inspiration from the “Minimum Viable Product” (MVP) model, MVI focuses on building a foundational defence industry that can efficiently meet core national security needs while remaining flexible to adapt as future requirements evolve.
In light of growing regional security challenges, particularly from great power competition in the Indo-Pacific, the article argues that Australia must develop an industrial base capable of rapidly scaling up to support defence needs in times of crisis. This involves identifying the minimum capabilities required to maintain operational readiness, fostering innovation, and building strong public-private partnerships to boost defence manufacturing capacity.
A key component of this strategy includes focusing on critical technologies and processes that support Australia’s defence priorities, such as sovereign production of key military equipment, munitions, and systems. It also highlights the need for agile frameworks that allow the industry to quickly adapt to emerging threats and enhance self-reliance.
As Australia faces increasing pressure to ensure its strategic autonomy, the concept of MVI calls for a comprehensive, long-term investment in defence industries. This would not only meet immediate defence needs but also provide the flexibility to scale operations in response to future security challenges, ensuring a resilient and capable defence posture in an uncertain global environment.
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at
