What’s Better Than 75 Abrams Tanks?
.
By Lesley Seebeck
January 18, 2022
During a pandemic, some in Australia may argue that any excess defence funding should be allocated to rapid antigen tests and a creaking hospital system. But there’s good reason to ensure funding is held to strategically important interests over the longer term, and not nibbled away by immediate concerns, even worthy ones. That’s why defence spending is fenced off from other budget concerns, managed within an envelope and jealously guarded, if always contested.
We expect governments—especially in a modern, wealthy nation—to manage both short-term concerns and the long-term defence capability needed to meet the challenge of a darkening, more competitive international environment. And so it’s worth asking whether indeed, with apologies to Jane Austen, a government in possession of a sudden windfall in defence funding is really in want of 75 Abrams tanks.
First, to the source of the apparent windfall eliciting 75 tanks plus associated vehicles ($3.5 billion) and self-propelled howitzers ($1 billion). That windfall was part of the funding originally allocated to the cancelled Attack-class submarines. More may be forthcoming before the costs of the nuclear-powered submarine program kick in—government reporting offers little insight into the mechanics of internal budgeting. But it’s likely that the overall defence capability development program is being shuffled to manage adjustments to the submarine program and allow for ever-present slippage, compounded by effects of Covid 19 and supply-chain shortages.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/01/18/whats_better_than_75_abrams_tanks_812527.html
