John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I wonder if sharing the USN Crown Jewels would have been possible had the Afghanistan debacle not happened? I think that along with the concern Asian allies about US resolve wrt China forced this decision.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
This announcement would have been in the works for months. It’s about more than the subs. The way it has been announced conveys a lot.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Will need it with the SSNs, the questions still to be answered are how many, when they are to be delivered and cost. with the SSGs it was 12 with the last one in service by 2057 and a $90b price tag, we really still need all 6 Collins replaced 1 for 1 by the early 40s,
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
They will be hurling the Escargot's and mumbling about the Anglosphere.
The French pride on one side and the howls of protest that will be enamating from Beijing. They'll be working themselves up to a fever in Beijing. There will be much tearing of hair, frothing of the mouth, stamping of the feet, spitting of the dummies, tossing of the toys; right toddlers tantrums. The French will spit the dummy a bit too. Don't be surprised that any Australian dealings with the EU, especially WRT trade become more difficult. Also next time the Wallabies play the French in the rugger don't be surprised if the French team play somewhat dirty and there's some biffo.
Understatement of the day
Any chance Australia may be given access to US equipment that has until now been a no no, such as F22?
@hairyman
This has been done to dust and given the aircraft is out of manufacture it is clear the answer is no. If the US restart production then feel free to start the conversation. Otherwise ... I suggest you drop it as it add no value.
Alexsa
@hairyman
This has been done to dust and given the aircraft is out of manufacture it is clear the answer is no. If the US restart production then feel free to start the conversation. Otherwise ... I suggest you drop it as it add no value.
Alexsa
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow someone likes living dangerously.
No, just, no.
Well DDG I suspect you are right but its hard to say never about anything atm.
A lot of folks punched up Rex Patrick about wanting Nuclear subs and he was pretty much well dismissed here. Some members might be feeling a bit red faced about the "never going to happen" responses.
It looks like Dutton is bull dozing a lot of sacred cows into the ground in defence.
@Bob53
Please note the response to hairyman. There is enough going on so focusing on something that is not an option is not helpful
Alexsa
Last edited by a moderator:
I said no as the US stopped building the F-22 in 2011. Now please explain to me how the RAN planning on buying and building SSNs equates to the RAAF suddenly getting an aircraft that hasn't rolled off the production line in 10 years. Some of say no because we understand the real world practicalities of modern weapon system purchase time frames and building them.
or ... more kindly, part of a group pushing back and providing the military muscle to give the some grunt. Basically .... and I hate this saying ... we are carrying our own water. As is the UK and members of ASEAN if you look at recent regional capacity building.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
Well said. I think from the US perspective there is a feeling that they want their allies to carry their share. That's a criticism you frequently hear with regard to NATO. So, in this case, it's somewhat of an acceptance that it would be better for Australia - and the US - for the former to have this capability.
It's not about that at all. It's about Australia gaining the best capability to meet its needs.
But this leads us to another very important question, what is the Australian National Security Strategy? Where does Defence sit within this plan? And is the ADF structured and equipped for a future near peer war? These are all questions raised by Senator Jim Molan a well respected retired Australian Army General Officer. He argues that there is no overarching comprehensive National Security Strategy that covers everything including resilience. He further argues that the ADF is good for the wars of the last 75 years but would last maybe one or two days in the next one against a near peer enemy because the pollies, ADF, Defence, commentators etc., are looking backwards to the last 75 years and not forwards to the future. So they're busy fighting the last war and not planning for the next. This, in his opinion, is a fatal error.
I happen to agree with him and that you must realistically look at what you most likely will face in a war against China. He believes that China will follow a similar path to the Imperial Japanese war plan. A surprise attack on US bases in the Western Pacific which would be Guam, Okinawa, mainland Japanese and South Korean bases, Darwin, Pearl Harbour and Diego Garcia. Then they will invest Taiwan because the US won't be able to interfere. It is possible that they could succeed in driving the US out of the Western Pacific. Then they would have total control of the Second Island Chain and would have significant domination of the Third Island Chain which includes both Australia and NZ.
Jim Molan says that Taiwan is not a strategic objective for the PRC. Their strategy is to kick the Americans out of the Western Pacific and have total hegemony over the First and Second Island Chains, with control over the Third Island Chain. They can deal with Taiwan in their own time. If they went for Taiwan before they have reduced or eliminated the US military capability in the Western Pacific, the US would make life very difficult for them and maybe give them a large set back.
I believe that he is right about any potential Chinese attack against the US. Like he says, removing the US bases from the equation means that the US has to operate from extra long lines in order to combat Chinese assets. The US has one CBG and 1 ARG in the Pacific. Sink both groups and the US has no credible surface or air forces available to take the fight to the Chinese for probably six months. It will take time to reposition forces from the Atlantic and the Middle East as well as retrain forces and train new forces. So in many ways we are looking at a repeat of 1941 and 42 again.
Is Australia prepared for any of this? No.
Is the ADF structured and equipped for such a conflict. No.
What time frame are we looking at? Jim Molan thinks 10 - 15 years.
What do you do? Don't panic Capt Mainwaring.
Is it 1932 or 1922?
Submarines have been a big part of the conversation today but in reality this is a future capability a very long way over the horizon.
Yes we have raised the flag with the UK and the US so we will be much closer going forward.
New long range strike will be afford with the acquisition of a range of long distant standoff weapons which is prudent and timely.
So what else could we acquire to provide deterrent capability within the 10 year time frame.
Airforce is OK, just make a call on that forth sqn and do justice to all that you have.
Navy is in a massive build cycle so not much you can do but do justice to all that you have.
Army -finally getting the equipment it should of had decades ago.
It will take time to learn and understand what it can do.
Probably the service that needs the most support.
Regards S
You have missed the point completely. The gist of my post isn't about platforms but about strategies. An overarching National Security Strategy and a ADF strategy for a future war not the last ones. The National Security Strategy informs your overall ADF strategy which then informs your CONOPS and capability planning. Until you do that you don't know what you actually require, and the evidence points to what the ADF has at the moment is not it.
Otherwise known as deterrence.
If the other guy thinks you are an easy mark and they are so inclined they will bash you and rob you, if they think you can hurt them, not necessarily defeat them, but make attacking you a painful, or even crippling experience, then they may not bash and rob you at all.
Well, when I did JSSC (30 years ago now…good lord) we certainly had a comprehensive study period on our national strategy. A number of people, including Paul Dibb spoke on it, as did both the heads of foreign affairs and defence, and some senior pollies. We also got the “smell the love” mob’s point of view. There was an articulated and fairly commonly held view of Australia’s position in the world and how it should be maintained.
I doubt if that approach to the business has changed much since then although undoubtedly the issues and details have - and we saw such a change yesterday (the approach, not the hardware). It just hasn’t been widely talked about as for a generation Australians haven’t had a great deal to worry about in the world from an existential perspective and “she’ll be right mate” has carried the day. That seems to be changing as well!
I doubt if that approach to the business has changed much since then although undoubtedly the issues and details have - and we saw such a change yesterday (the approach, not the hardware). It just hasn’t been widely talked about as for a generation Australians haven’t had a great deal to worry about in the world from an existential perspective and “she’ll be right mate” has carried the day. That seems to be changing as well!