How many of them could you hide a strike master on….
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
With EOS marketing a marinised version of the Slinger should the RAN fit this as an addition to/ replacement for its Typhoon mounts?
Given the number of Typhoon mounts in service around the world, would it be a smart idea for EOS to offer a targeting and fire control upgrade to cover these existing mounts?
Given the number of Typhoon mounts in service around the world, would it be a smart idea for EOS to offer a targeting and fire control upgrade to cover these existing mounts?
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
AUKUS-SSN remains the only game in town for the RAN, but to bridge the gap who knows. This may be another move to push Australia closer towards a private commitment to help the US in case of a Taiwan emergency.
As Bender would say "it's gonna be fun on a bun".
Potentially very bad news, but I suspect this is a bargaining chip to get Albo to spend more on Defence ahead of the upcoming meeting between him and Trump.
In my opinion Australia is already committed to any American action against China. There are currently more US forces based in Australian Territory since WW2.
If war were to break out between the US and China I would expect American assets based in Australian territory to be one of China’s first targets. We would be in the fight whether we like it or not.
I look forward to an official review by the Trump Administration because it will remove all doubt about the SSN program and the value of AUKUS.
I think there is a fair bit of positioning here.
Australia is one of the few allies to not submit to the US push for increased defence spending. This was always going to put the government in the headlights at some point.
Trumps's go to response to resistance is to hit hard early (I present LA as an example) and I would suggest this review of AUKUS aligns with that strategy.
I suspect Albanese is in for a rough meeting with Trump at the G7. I would think it advisable that he avoids doing a joint media presentation at the moment.
I just wonder if the government will give ground now or later. I don't see this ending well on the current trajectory of denial.
This is what the government gets for not stepping up. The writing has been on the wall since they entered office but they have been dragging their feet, and so we will need to be forced to recognise the gravity of the situation.
Obviously this has domestic political implications.
A smart government would describe this as a national emergency, and use this as a cover for broad based reform such as:
- serious reform of Medicare and the NDIS to address waste
- increase in wealth based taxes (eliminate CGT exemptions, land tax, franking credit refunds, inheritance taxes, excess super balances)
- broadening asset tests for the pension and other benefits
- rebasing of resource based taxes ie dear Trump, we can increase our defence spending if your majors pay us a fair price for the gas / iron ore / coal they’re exporting
I suppose we’ll see over the next few months whether they are smart or not.
Very little need for another mount, I’d suggest. The existing 25mm Typhoon mounts should however be upgraded / replaced to the latest Typhoon Mk.30C (already selected for the HCF’s) standard, which feature strong C-UAS capability in their own right.
I’d not be particularly adverse to seeing this as the long term solution for the Arafura Class either, given the limited expectations we have for it…
That's a lot of assumptions, chiefly China takes direct action against US assets in the region, unilaterally. I find it consistent in western narratives to mix up having the capability (example: "ability to attack Guam") and actually using the capability.
The Chinese, IMO has demonstrated the ability to calibrate their responses to suit their agenda, whether to push when they detect weakness (e.g SCS, the Philippines), or to dial back to prevent further escalation. My opinion is they will seek to avoid giving a direct casus belli, especially with a Taiwan intervention.
Then the problem/initiative gets pass back to US and regional allies like Australia, Japan. Unlike Europe, there is no NATO, no Article 5 to justify intervention.
KrustyKoala
New Member
Yeah I think it comes down to this. A review of AUKUS could've already happend earlier but it happening right after the Prime Minister and Defence Minister both gave a commitment to increasing spending the cold shoulder is a sign.
Surprsingly, this Trump administration has been consistent (for the most part) continuing Biden Era policies on the Indo-Pacific according to Ely Ratner a Biden era Asisstant Secretary. Pete Hegseth's speech at the Shangri-la summit did reflect continuity too.
Elbridge Colby, who is leading this review may be a self described AUKUS skeptic but even then says he can be open to AUKUS if it means more Submarines in the water. His Senate Confirmation Hearing was clear if AUKUS is going to happen it can't be half done
I don't expect much from a review. It will probably see how AUKUS is going, if it's on track and how to make sure it's on track.
The real story is America will start putting more pressure on Australia to increase spending than ever before. Australia has always been pushed but it was never America's focus on its quest to 'fight free-loaders'. NATO is the big fish, yet when you have the NATO Secretary supporting the calls for more spending and Elbridge Colby praising NATO members like Sweden or Pete Hegseth calling Poland and the Baltic countries 'Model Allies', the same NATO allies who agree with more spending. Then pressure will be put on American Allies who haven't commited/supported that increased spending like Australia.
Colby and the Trump Administration do want Australia to spend 3.5% of GDP ASAP. There's no jumping around that. The focus will be on America's Indo-Pacific allies and its clear America cant want their security more than they do.
Honestly as much as I don’t like much of what Trump et al are doing, I don’t think this is an unreasonable position from them. We need to pull our collective fingers out.
AndyinOz
Member
I know the metric of percentage of GDP is the prevailing measure capability used especially by the political class in this case. But as simply an interested on-looker to the defence realm I wonder. If the 'review' is designed to ramp up pressure on Australia to spend more on defence the question for me becomes 'on what'? In a naval context. Do we say to the US that as part of that we will put an extra 'x' number of $billion into their industrial base to assist with maintenance backlogs and or new production capacity? Especially since it has been often suggested that production in the US needs to reach 2.33 units to satisfy US demands and Australia. Would this be done on the basis that we would be assured then of submarines being transferred into Australian service because it would not be diminishing the number of boats the US Navy or Government has at its disposal for its own needs as is somewhat the wording of the agreement as I understand it.
Does it mean we increase our own surface fleet restoring the original anticipated number of Hunter's to 9 and or the numbers of GPF from 11 to say 15. Restoring the program to build 2 Joint Support Ships, or any number of other programs naval orientated or not. Do we pour money into in some way accelerating our own build programs amongst the ones we have remained committed to at this point. Can we achieve that sort of ramping up in terms of people and skills required? Would these increases in the number of vessels or platforms available satisfy the suggestion from the US that allies increase their capacity to support the US or to influence the region in their own right.
I certainly have no issue in increasing the funding made available to defence, especially in a region where competition amongst countries seems to be increasing, most notably from China. I am curious though what we do with it especially funding increases of that sort of magnitude as is being discussed. And even then aside from simply hardware or facilities, the required increase in personnel numbers, both uniform and supporting civilian roles. Can we and how do we achieve that and in what time frame considering the training and education that is required across the board. Not to forget will the government of the day and the public swallow that against competing spending priorities.
Does it mean we increase our own surface fleet restoring the original anticipated number of Hunter's to 9 and or the numbers of GPF from 11 to say 15. Restoring the program to build 2 Joint Support Ships, or any number of other programs naval orientated or not. Do we pour money into in some way accelerating our own build programs amongst the ones we have remained committed to at this point. Can we achieve that sort of ramping up in terms of people and skills required? Would these increases in the number of vessels or platforms available satisfy the suggestion from the US that allies increase their capacity to support the US or to influence the region in their own right.
I certainly have no issue in increasing the funding made available to defence, especially in a region where competition amongst countries seems to be increasing, most notably from China. I am curious though what we do with it especially funding increases of that sort of magnitude as is being discussed. And even then aside from simply hardware or facilities, the required increase in personnel numbers, both uniform and supporting civilian roles. Can we and how do we achieve that and in what time frame considering the training and education that is required across the board. Not to forget will the government of the day and the public swallow that against competing spending priorities.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
I think there's still an element of cakeism. Australia has indicated it may be involved in a crisis in the South Seas. But it's been very quiet about Taiwan.
Sadly, yes. Australia is in denial if it thinks it can afford all its planned defence plans on 2% or even 2.5% of GDP, especially when you think about SSN-AUKUS. UK Labour begrudgingly admitted recently that its plans assume 3% on defence. However, it's not clear they will actually increase spending because at the moment they're trying to roll lots of budgets into defence to make it look bigger.
I suspect that the White House believes Canberra will do the same thing.
"As soon as possible" is better read as "as soon as practicable". Unfortunately we're living in a world where spending a lot on defence is the only realistic war to avoid a devastating global war, because China and Russia will see anything else as a sign a) governments aren't serious about taking them on and b) that they have lots of time until new capabilities are online to take what they want.
Last edited:
I feel we will be asked to make a larger contribution to the US manufacturing base, be expected to speed up getting FBW/Henderson upgraded, and pay more for subs.
We may need to consider paying for the privilege of having US troops and Naval vessels based in Australia (like Korea and Japan are being pushed to do).
I would be surprised if are not also pushed to invest in some quality IAMD for FBW and Darwin as a minimum. The US will expect decent protection for their people and equipment.
Given we also sponge off the US for satellite coverage, and we annoyed LM with the recent tender, I'm thinking they will also tell us to get our own.
It will be interesting to see what the government is willing to put on the table to keep the US engaged in AUKUS.
We are the one with few cards to play on this. We need subs and we can only get them in the near term from the US.