Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

STURM

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure prepositioning helps the Chinese a whole lot, arguably their best defended space is mainland China itself
I see it more as a political move on the part of China. It can also be argued however that Chinese assets in say Cambodia or Myanmar will better enable China to break out of the First Island Chain;' similar to the roles China's islands/reefs in the South China Sea play. As it stands however there is little possibility of China placing assets in Cambodia or Myanmar; even if it wanted to.

Australia gives another vector to project power.
Which is exactly what worries China. Assets in Australia better enable Chinese shipping in the Indian Ocean or the Melaka Straits to be interdicited. Those assets can also be deployed to Butterworth or Indonesia if the political situation permits.

But do the Chinese believe the Americans will actually go to war with them, over Taiwan?
I think they do but aren't sure yet [neither are the Americans for that matter] as to how far is the U.S. really willing to go for Taiwan.

The japanese took years to fight there way to our door step
They were in New Guinea and the Solomans months after Pearl Harbour.

They want Japan and SK to be out of the fight, by threat of force, and honestly, they can probably do that?
They also need to keep.various South East Asian states neutral. This is just as important because having hostile assets in these countries makes it somewhat complicated for the Chinese.
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I see it more as a political move on the part of China. It can also be argued however that Chinese assets in say Cambodia or Myanmar will better enable China to break out of the First Island Chain;' similar to the roles China's islands/reefs in the South China Sea play. As it stands however there is little possibility of China placing assets in Cambodia or Myanmar; even if it wanted to.
China's strength is when they are close to China. They are the dominant power in that space. In softpower situations, very useful, in all out peer conflict with the United states and its allies less so. They want total ownership of the 1st island chain space.
Which is exactly what worries China. Assets in Australia better enable Chinese shipping in the Indian Ocean or the Melaka Straits to be interdicited. Those assets can also be deployed to Butterworth or Indonesia if the political situation permits.
I worry about butterworth, I doubt Indonesia will ever have a climate to base actual combat aircraft flying combat missions. Butterworth is a long standing existing arrangement, its key to the five powers, Malaysia and Australia generally get along. Refusing it would be basically terminating the 5 powers arrangement, upsetting the UK, annoying the Americans, make Singapore paranoid, and Indonesia re-assess. So quite a lot at play, but the Chinese have tremendous ability to apply pressure. Particularly combat missions.

Indonesia on the other hand, doesn't particularly get along with Australia, has no history of basing and joint operation, isn't overseen by other larger power. Unless China was opening hitting Indonesian targets, lets presume any Indonesian basing of Australian assets is out of scope?

I think they do but aren't sure yet [neither are the Americans for that matter] as to how far is the U.S. really willing to go for Taiwan.
Hard to say. History seems to indicate, the American's don't tend to rush straight in and fight your battles for you. But they will happily sell you equipment for your struggle and provide other support. Ultimately, war is won by those who have the most conviction to their cause, the Taiwanese would have to do a lot of heavy lifting, against a really big and close threat. I think everyone is looking to see what the state of play is in the next 5 years, both the US and China. China can have aircraft over Taiwan inless than an hour. The US doesn't have any forces based there. So it would seem initial fighting and deterrence needs to come from the Taiwanese. US always explores its options.

Shouldn't really change Australia's course of action. Taiwan is just one (the most likely) friction point, in a world of challenging strategic threats. China could collapse into civil disorder. The US could collapse into civil disorder. A war could break out over an accident. Or spill over from another region (Europe?).

They were in New Guinea and the Solomans months after Pearl Harbour.
Yes, but they didn't just wake up on day and strike pearl harbour having committed no other aggression. They fought Russia in the 1900's. They took Korea (1910), they took Manchuria (1930), they worked there way down, the League of Nations gave them territories (1920), they took Vietnam, they took Malaya, they took Singapore .


China isn't going to just pop out of our lunch box and fight a 1 on 1 war with Australia with all its might while everyone just watches. Mainland China is just fine where it is, thousands of miles away, in another hemisphere, surrounded by its own problems including Japan, Koreas, Vietnam, India, the USA and to a lesser extent Russia and Pakistan.

Australia doesn't have to worry about mainland China. Its them having the largest naval fleet and a very capable air force that is our concern. They don't have to fight for all these territories, they know long term, economically they could have them in their orbit.

They also need to keep.various South East Asian states neutral. This is just as important because having hostile assets in these countries makes it somewhat complicated for the Chinese.
Even for the biggest guys, like the US and Japan, a war with China is not something you want. Even Japan, finds it difficult to oppose China, particularly without the US literally having ships there.

China doesn't want to fight 15 countries. It doesn't want to fight anyone. It wants Taiwan. It wants everyone to stay away, or preferably, leave the region. Most states, even if they feel what is happening in Taiwan is wrong, and are worried about Chinese aggression, are going to jump in front of China and its goal, or even take pot shots.

Heck, even the US isn't likely to do that. They will approach, tell them to stop, start diplomacy.

Look at Europe. Took quite a while for some NATO states to really understand what is going on and what to support, how bravely promise some basic equipment. Australia has provided more aid than France. Germany was just promising helmets at one stage. France wanted to sell them two LHD's last time. Everyone needs oil. These are rich powerful states, some with US forces based on them, and Russia's strength is pretty unimpressive these days, even before the Ukraine failures. Everyone is looking at what the US says and does.

Russia has been successful at stopping other nations from joining the conflict. They have been unsuccessful at getting other countries from supplying arms and weapons to Ukraine, because supplying weapons is so easy, politically internally usually acceptable. Sanctions have happened against Russia. Assets have been taken.

China would be different, its much bigger, much more capable, its surrounded my nations much smaller. There is no NATO in Asia.

But Australia would be critical. We supply so much energy, ore, just shutting down what we supply them ourselves would be significant and we *could* control the straits.

So where we fall on the issue and what capabilities we have is absolutely essential.

But we can't do it, with one or two operational destroyers, some Anzacs and a good portion of the Collins fleet out of action, and only 3 squadrons. That isn't credible. That doesn't look like credible capability.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Butterworth is a long standing existing arrangement, its key to the five powers, Malaysia and Australia generally get along. Refusing it would be basically terminating the 5 powers arrangement, upsetting the UK, annoying the Americans, make Singapore paranoid, and Indonesia re-assess.
It's a non binding arrangement; any major decisions need the agreement of all members. Malaysia may be tilted towards the U.S. and Australia but it's not given that it will openly takes sides in the event of a conflict; same goes with Singapore.

Malaysian refusal to allow RAAF aircraft based on its territory to undertake combat ops against China will not necessarily lead to the end of the FPDA.

Indonesia on the other hand, doesn't particularly get along with Australia, has no history of basing and joint operation, isn't overseen by other larger power. Unless China was opening hitting Indonesian targets, lets presume any Indonesian basing of Australian assets is out of scope?
Agreed but bear in mind that bilateral relations have improved significantly compared to the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. The changing calculus has seen Indonesia view Australia more as a partner rather than an irritant or a threat.

In fact I would argue that from a geo strategic/political perspective Indonesia is far more vital to Australia's interests than any other South East Asian country.

Hard to say. History seems to indicate, the American's don't tend to rush straight in and fight your battles for you.
[/QUOTE

True but ultimately China is a nuclear power and conventionally isn't Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Serbia and Grenada; there will be a limit as to how far America is willing to push things.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
It's a non binding arrangement; any major decisions need the agreement of all members. Malaysia may be tilted towards the U.S. and Australia but it's not given that it will openly takes sides in the event of a conflict; same goes with Singapore.

Malaysian refusal to allow RAAF aircraft based on its territory to undertake combat ops against China will not necessarily lead to the end of the FPDA.
I've over simplied my view on that. But I also think we cannot always assume Butterworth is there, to do, whatever we want. Malaysia dictating to Australia about Butterworth would harm the harmony, particularly if its following a Chinese line, rather than legitimate concerns from its own people or interests. But Butterworth is a real thing, and on going thing.

In fact I would argue that from a geo strategic/political perspective Indonesia is far more vital to Australia's interests than any other South East Asian country
Relations with Indonesia are heaps better now. However, its a long way from basing aircraft there striking out at Chinese shipping and targets.
Honestly these days, Indonesia and Australia are co-dependent security partners. Absolutely neither of us are really worried about the other, we are all worried about China.

That being said, there is still friction around Malaysia/Singapore/Indonesia dynamic. Old habit die hard. But its small stuff, and usually about silly stuff to appeal to voters. Military planning wise, its all about the Chinese. . Everyone believes its far more likely a politician will say or do something that will annoy the Chinese and they turn up and try to solve something with military force. But that also doesn't me every option is open and its one unified command and unified force. Indonesia and Malaysia were annoyed about AUKUS. Indonesia is also probably a bit annoyed about B-52's in Tindal. There are limits to what Indonesian leadership will go to to accommodate Australia, even if the Indonesian leadership want to do it, the public may not, and Indonesian politics is complicated.

Nothing new in this regard. Realistically in a high end conflict, we will get high levels of support from the Indonesian Military and likely the Indonesian Leadership.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
It can also be argued however that Chinese assets in say Cambodia or Myanmar will better enable China to break out of the First Island Chain;' similar to the roles China's islands/reefs in the South China Sea play. As it stands however there is little possibility of China placing assets in Cambodia or Myanmar; even if it wanted to.
The currently hypothetical pre-positioning of Chinese forces in Cambodia and/or Myanmar does offer the opportunity for an alternative point to break out, as mentioned. Whilst not directly threatening Australia such a pre-positioning would represent a more likely threat vector to China's other significant adversary, India. Such a positioning of forces then adds further complexity for the strategic planners in India, US and Australia (as well as other countries too).
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
But Butterworth is a real thing, and on going thing
It is. HQIADs is led by an RAAF officer and in addition to about 100 over RAAF people permanently based there; there also Rifle Company Butterworth. In addition to hosting RAAF aircraft on exercises the base it's also a rest/refueling point for RAAF aircraft on their way to or from the Middle East and elsewhere. Operation Gateway which involves RAAF MPAs conducting ISR over the Melaka Straits and South China Sea is conducted from Butterworth.

Indonesia and Malaysia were annoyed about AUKUS. Indonesia is also probably a bit annoyed about B-52's in Tindal. .
Both are/were extremely worried of being caught up in any unpleasantness which would arise in the event of troubles between China and a U.S. led alliance/coalition.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The currently hypothetical pre-positioning of Chinese forces in Cambodia and/or Myanmar does offer the opportunity for an alternative point to break out, as mentioned.
There are Chinese funded ports in Pakistan and Sri Lanka which can support PLAN deployments but unlike other certain countries China does not see the point in permanently basing military assets around the world and I doubt very much this will change.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
There are limits to what Indonesian leadership will go to to accommodate Australia, even if the Indonesian leadership want to do it, the public may not, and Indonesian politics is complicated.
Indonesian politics can be seen complicated, but Indonesian constituences actually not that complicated. In fact it can be said for most ASEAN constituences (as I also put it on ASEAN thread). The most importantly is to find something they can trust will provide more or less stability and still growth their "pocket"/Economics well being.

Still Indonesian constituences is quite nationalistics. Thus as long as it is not shown dictating Indonesia too much, while engaging on interaction that good on promoting stabilities, that kind of partner will be accepted by public opinion. China knows this, so does Japan even South Korean. I put those three as they are the ones that put much effort on Investments and trade. To gain Indonesian constituent trust is through economics stabilities, with that goes Indonesian Politics trend.

Basing rights will not going sell well with Indonesian constituences. However defense partnerships is another matter (as long as the Partner not been seen try to dictate).
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Yes, but they didn't just wake up on day and strike pearl harbour having committed no other aggression. They fought Russia in the 1900's. They took Korea (1910), they took Manchuria (1930), they worked there way down, the League of Nations gave them territories (1920), they took Vietnam, they took Malaya, they took Singapore .

A quibble: the Russo-Japanese war was two expansionist empires clashing over spheres of influence, not Japanese aggression.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
unlike other certain countries China does not see the point in permanently basing military assets around the world and I doubt very much this will change.
What about the Chinese military base in Djibouti and the reported base in Equatorial Guinea? With the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) China has entrenched its military and security apparatus in Africa, but it has managed to do so largely without provoking an international backlash. Instead, Beijing has integrated a military and security component into its economic partnerships with African states, making China’s defence presence in Africa part of the fabric of the continent’s development. Unlike Western governments, whose vision horizon is usually to the next election, the CCP takes a longer term view which can be 10 or more years in the making.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
With the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) China has entrenched its military and security apparatus in Africa, but it has managed to do so largely without provoking an international backlash.
Largely because it has not deployed troops abroad in large numbers. What it has done is to extend its presence by means of soft paper; diplomacy and economic cooperation/assistance; as you alluded to. Ultimately however if the day does come when China has a large military presence abroad; will be extremely hypocritical for certain other countries to make a fuss about it.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Ultimately however if the day does come when China has a large military presence abroad; will be extremely hypocritical for certain other countries to make a fuss about it.
As you know, US military bases are actually highly appreciated in many places. Poland, and the Baltics come to mind -- those countries have been pushing the US very hard to increase the US military presence in their countries.

I am sure as China continues their "peaceful rise" in SEA (a good example of hypocrisy by the way) then US military bases will become more popular also in that region.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
As you know, US military bases are actually highly appreciated in many places. Poland, and the Baltics come to mind -- those countries have been pushing the US very hard to increase the US military presence in their countries.
They are 'appreciated in many places' but less so in other countries. You of course are referring to Europe and I'm referring to Asian countries...

I am sure as China continues their "peaceful rise" in SEA (a good example of hypocrisy by the way) then US military bases will become more popular also in that region.
In some countries yes; in others less so. Perhaps you should better acquaint yourself with the internal politics at play in various regional countries and how the view things; as well as their concerns before assuming that ''US military bases will become more popular also in that region''. Note that since 1945 U.S. bases have not been a permanent fixture in any South East Asian country; apart from the Philippines and this is unlikely to change for factors I'll be happy to discuss if there's a need. Also note that the Japanese and South Koreans are not asking for an increased permanent U.S. military footprint in their countries.

With regards to ''hypocrisy'' I merely pointed out that China does not see the need to have military bases around the globe but if it did and others made a fuss about it - self explanatory.
 
Last edited:

Aardvark144

Active Member
It is. HQIADs is led by an RAAF officer and in addition to about 100 over RAAF people permanently based there; there also Rifle Company Butterworth. In addition to hosting RAAF aircraft on exercises the base it's also a rest/refueling point for RAAF aircraft on their way to or from the Middle East and elsewhere. Operation Gateway which involves RAAF MPAs conducting ISR over the Melaka Straits and South China Sea is conducted from Butterworth.



Both are/were extremely worried of being caught up in any unpleasantness which would arise in the event of troubles between China and a U.S. led alliance/coalition.
No offence; however, a bit generous with the numbers. Nowhere near that number permanently based there.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
No offence; however, a bit generous with the numbers. Nowhere near that number permanently based there.
You could be right; I have the types of logistical/support units based there but not the actual numbers. I recall reading somewhere it was about 100 or so but I could be wrong.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro

Interesting article, and something I have thought would be useful for a long time.
I worked for Paspaley Pearl's in the early part of the 2000s, and we flew to the Pearl farms via seaplane, in all kinds of weather conditions. It was then it occurred to me how useful these types of aircraft could be for the ADF. SF operations, re sups in remote locations or search and rescue. A small fleet would definitely have some use imo.
All 3 services could benefit from these.
Pearl aviation uses re engined Gruman Mallards, which are not ideal, however, I guess the ADF could charter these if needed.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

Interesting article, and something I have thought would be useful for a long time.
I worked for Paspaley Pearl's in the early part of the 2000s, and we flew to the Pearl farms via seaplane, in all kinds of weather conditions. It was then it occurred to me how useful these types of aircraft could be for the ADF. SF operations, re sups in remote locations or search and rescue. A small fleet would definitely have some use imo.
All 3 services could benefit from these.
Pearl aviation uses re engined Gruman Mallards, which are not ideal, however, I guess the ADF could charter these if needed.
That's an interesting proposition. Yes, the day of the Grumman Mallard has long passed but they were a great bird, a derivative of the Grumman Goose. The ShinMaywa US-2 is the JMSDF amphibious aircraft in use now. The USSOCOM were looking at it earlier this year ShinMaywa and USSOCOM Comment on the US-2 Seaplane - Naval News and the article discusses the limitations from the SF POV.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@StingrayOZ I agree that the PRC aren't Imperial Japan but they have their heads screwed on better than the Imperial Japanese did. First of all the PRC have the ability of studying the Imperial Japanese Pacific Campaign and the conditions leading up to it. There is quite a significant difference to the political and geostrategic conditions between now and those existing during the 1930s and 1941. For one the CCP has ensured that the whole of the PLA is singing from the same song sheet. When the Imperial Japanese launched their Pacific war the IJA & IJN were at war with each other, plus they had an ongoing war in China. The IJA kept it's best and strongest army, the 6th Kwantung Army in Manchuria along the Russian border and it stayed there until 1945. Hence the Japanese Empire wasn't able to muster all of its forces for the Pacific war. All of those extra forces in China could've made a difference in the Pacific. Imagine if they were available in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.

Today the PRC isn't committed to fighting a war in another part of Asia, so it has the luxury of being able to commit its full forces to any Pacific campaign. The PLAN outnumbers the USN in combatants. The PRC industrial capability is far greater than the US industrial capability and it's pumping out naval vessels, aircraft, AFVs, guns, weapons etc., at high rates. During WW2 the US industrial capability was responsible for winning the war against both Nazi Germany in the west and the Japanese Empire. Today the US cannot repeat that same output because it just doesn't have anywhere near the same industrial mass to start with.

So I certainly believe that a problem exists and it may mean that people may have to change how they think about aircraft and similar acquisitions in this case. Whilst the F-35 and other platforms maybe the best on the market, they also require extensive time and resources to build, plus treasure to acquire. Quality, especially high quality, is great however it comes at a cost and if you require to increase numbers rapidly, that cost may be prohibitive not only in treasure, but in time and quantities deliverable. Maybe the quality level of good is more appropriate and advisable here, with such platforms and manufacturers needing to be identified. You should also be prepared to look at non traditional suppliers.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Good day folks

I had to check the name of the thread as I was sure it was the RAAF thread (which it is) ..... not a China Geo political one looking at the the ADF as a whole and China's expansion into SE Asia.

It is a valid topic but can we please redirect this back to the RAAF and deal with China in the appropriate tread.

I suggest the ADF thread .... or the China Geopolitical (probably better) threads.


alexsa
 
Top