Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[SammyC]

I don’t think that is how a modern blue water navy with a massive para military auxiliary fleet would go about a blockade of Australia though. They would simply declare a blockade and then threaten and board unescorted merchant vessels that chose to defy (I am not suggesting this is a likely event or without risk for China). By analogy: When the RAN participates in blockades it doesn’t lay mines for merchant vessels.

True. The deeper we look into a scenario, the more complex the outcomes can be.

I would view China could enact what you have said with relative ease within the SE China Sea region, and supply lanes in this area would be very problematic. But they would struggle to do this in the open Indian or Pacific Ocean. They have lots of shorter range vessels, but still not much in the long range capability.

My point was that if we move our critical supply lanes to the Indian or Pacific Oceans and out of the SE China Sea, then the the tyranny of distance actually plays to our favour. I recognise this is easier said than done, is expensive, and it still has some risks, but it is a practical approach to reducing an adversary's hold over us in the maritime environment.

I take your point they have sizable auxiliary grey fleets. These can certainly cause problems. But to board a tanker or container ship on the high seas does require a large surface combatant vessel. You can't do this with a fishing boat.

 

[StingrayOZ]

This is absolutely correct, most of the stuff we import and export is to China. They wouldn’t have to send any military hardware to cripple us, just stop the ships.

The crippling will go both ways. No coal, no iron ore, no gas. They are trying to fix their dependance on Australia, but it isn't there yet. China would be out of the export business globally, so hundreds of millions out of work. Which is why Australia is such an important partner with Japan, we have collateral with China. China can probably do without Japan's import/exports. However, with Australia it would be a big thing.
If the straits of Malacca and Sunda are mined or insecure, then the next obvious way around is around Australia.

You've just indicated why it's not a viable strategy, because Australia doesn't have the ship numbers to perform escort duties.

Australia has almost no merchant vessels to escort. Most of our shipping is raw materials, the ships come back empty, leave full. They are owned or operated by those buying the resources. So in war or blockade, they just stop moving, not be escorted. Australia has no alliance treaty with China. The minerals can sit the ground for a few more years, they have sat there for hundreds of millions.

Our busiest commercial shipping container port is Melbourne. Our trade doesn't really go through many choke points, at least not our trade with the US/Japan/India. Europe takes us to suez. And Malacca is a choke point for everyone, Australia gets a lot of its refined oil from singapore, and Australia has significant input over that. Our biggest choke points are the trade lines directly around our ports and cities, they would need to be secured and patrolled. Not just 15,000km of ocean transit. Our strategic relationship with Japan, may mean we have more concern about PNG and through those areas with our allied partner.

I wouldn't say Australia is at extreme risk of blockade. But global war is different, anything can happen at any time. Australia needs capability to be able to patrol and secure its EEZ waters. That is an achievable goals.

During global war we would have to expect that things like car imports, electronics etc would likely stop. That mineral exports to China, would likely stop.

 

[seaspear]

This information is released on the Spearfish torpedo perhaps giving an idea on the latest mark 48 capabilities

Spearfish Mod 1 torpedo goes into service after final trials by HMS Audacious - Navy Lookout

Already one of the finest heavyweight torpedoes in the world, the programme to further enhance the accuracy and lethality of Spearfish is now complete. After extensive development and trials, the weapon has now been declared operational by the RN. The Spearfish upgrade project began in 2010 to...

www.navylookout.com

 

[GregorZ]

It's a really big double edged sword though. We might lose access to finished goods such as cars and whitegoods, but China would lose access to commodities such as LNG, coal and iron ore. We are such a large supplier of all of these to them, that they would struggle to replace with others.

I suspect this might hurt them more than us.

Agree it would hurt them as well, but in conflict, which is the context, they’d not have to send a single bit of hardware our way to cripple us. A large majority of our consumer goods, mechanical parts, spares, medical supplies, etc come from China. Take a look a round you, and look at what you’d find it hard to live without, then see which of those are made in China with no reasonable substitute.
Stopping the ships and some cyber warfare, would cripple us.

 

[MickB]

Agree it would hurt them as well, but in conflict, which is the context, they’d not have to send a single bit of hardware our way to cripple us. A large majority of our consumer goods, mechanical parts, spares, medical supplies, etc come from China. Take a look a round you, and look at what you’d find it hard to live without, then see which of those are made in China with no reasonable substitute.
Stopping the ships and some cyber warfare, would cripple us.

What surprises me most is that in these posts there is little to no mention of our allies.
Most talk like its Australia alone against China.
If the situation reached the point, as some describe above, of China torpedoing tankers on the high seas more than just Australia would become involved.

Remember in the near future both US and UK nuclear subs will be based in Perth.

 

[StevoJH]

What surprises me most is that in these posts there is little to no mention of our allies.
Most talk like its Australia alone against China.
If the situation reached the point, as some describe above, of China torpedoing tankers on the high seas more than just Australia would become involved.

Remember in the near future both US and UK nuclear subs will be based in Perth.

Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

What if the US (for example) goes completely isolationist and decides to prioritise its internal issues over foreign policy?

 

[Todjaeger]

What surprises me most is that in these posts there is little to no mention of our allies.
Most talk like its Australia alone against China.
If the situation reached the point, as some describe above, of China torpedoing tankers on the high seas more than just Australia would become involved.

Remember in the near future both US and UK nuclear subs will be based in Perth.

Allies might not be in a position to get involved. Also TBH I think it unlikely that any side would spend considerable anti-shipping efforts on the high seas, which also means that notional high seas transits and/or convoys would not provide the SLOC protection that some appear to think. I say this because whilst yes, trying to arrange an intercept on the high seas could be difficult, one also has to be ignoring other SLOC chokepoints that Australian trade has to utilize that are outside of SE Australasia. Petroleum being one of the very big ones in that most of the product is going to be coming out or through either the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Aden. AFAIK the PRC has been expanding the PLAN's capabilities to operate in such areas, both by increasing the capabilities of the PLAN itself, but also through overseas base building and through the Belt and Road initiative. If one looks at some of the port projects that China has been involved with, one will realize that such facilities could easily serve to support PLAN naval task forces, likely with the local gov't unable to really do anything about it.

It is also worth remembering (in the context of the PRC being a potential threat) that India might also not be able or willing to take much action or provide support, because a larger global conflict could easily see things between India and Pakistan turn hotter.

Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

What if the US (for example) goes completely isolationist and decides to prioritise its internal issues over foreign policy?

Hate to break it to you, but the US going completely isolationist and ignoring foreign policy for internal issues is by no means the 'worst case scenario' I am concerned about. My worst case US scenario bears more of a resemblance to Spain in 1937.

 

[Armchair]

I take your point they have sizable auxiliary grey fleets. These can certainly cause problems. But to board a tanker or container ship on the high seas does require a large surface combatant vessel. You can't do this with a fishing boat.

you are undoubtedly correct on the high seas part.
Those auxiliaries (and the large surface combatants) also have other strategic roles that would render them unavailable for blockading Australia. I suspect that In an actual conflict the threat to Australian SLOCs would be much more likely come from conventional submarines (hence Hunter and GPF).

 

[iambuzzard]

Allies might not be in a position to get involved. Also TBH I think it unlikely that any side would spend considerable anti-shipping efforts on the high seas, which also means that notional high seas transits and/or convoys would not provide the SLOC protection that some appear to think. I say this because whilst yes, trying to arrange an intercept on the high seas could be difficult, one also has to be ignoring other SLOC chokepoints that Australian trade has to utilize that are outside of SE Australasia. Petroleum being one of the very big ones in that most of the product is going to be coming out or through either the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Aden. AFAIK the PRC has been expanding the PLAN's capabilities to operate in such areas, both by increasing the capabilities of the PLAN itself, but also through overseas base building and through the Belt and Road initiative. If one looks at some of the port projects that China has been involved with, one will realize that such facilities could easily serve to support PLAN naval task forces, likely with the local gov't unable to really do anything about it.

It is also worth remembering (in the context of the PRC being a potential threat) that India might also not be able or willing to take much action or provide support, because a larger global conflict could easily see things between India and Pakistan turn hotter.



Hate to break it to you, but the US going completely isolationist and ignoring foreign policy for internal issues is by no means the 'worst case scenario' I am concerned about. My worst case US scenario bears more of a resemblance to Spain in 1937.

Internal conflict!

 

[John Fedup]

Hate to break it to you, but the US going completely isolationist and ignoring foreign policy for internal issues is by no means the 'worst case scenario' I am concerned about. My worst case US scenario bears more of a resemblance to Spain in 1937.

Agree. This "worst case scenario" is is of much greater concern to Canada than the ongoing tariff stuff.

 

[iambuzzard]

Agree. This "worst case scenario" is is of much greater concern to Canada than the ongoing tariff stuff.

Sadly, it may happen if cooler heads don't prevail.

 

[MickB]

Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

What if the US (for example) goes completely isolationist and decides to prioritise its internal issues over foreign policy?

Okay here is where I get overly dramatic, what you are all saying is if Australia does not build a fleet that exceeds that of China we are all screwed.
Since that is impossible we are all screwed. So why bother?
And if no alliance will come to our assistance why have them?

Yes one should explore all options, but is this senario of China virtually declaring war on Australia and not one of our allies giving a sh#t very realistic?
It seems to me this is very much the sky is falling thinking.


Sorry perhaps one should not drink and type.

 

[Wombat000]

but is this senario of China virtually declaring war on Australia and not one of our allies giving a sh#t very realistic?

Look at what’s happening to Ukraine.
Fickle much.

 

[MickB]

Look at what’s happening to Ukraine.
Fickle much.

What I am seeing is multiple countries that have no previous alliance with Ukraine, that were in fact on opposite sides in the cold war sending material aid and training support.
Do you think countries that have fought and bleed together and have long standing defence pacts would do less for Australia?
Shakey as US support might seem now that one man will (hopefully) be gone in another three years.

Yes I while know that countries don't have friends they just have self interest, I have yet to have someone show where it is in our allies self interest to let Australia fall.

 

[iambuzzard]

Look at what’s happening to Ukraine.
Fickle much.

The leaders of the UK, France and Germany amongst others are flying to DC to support Zelensky against Trump. That hasn't happened in my lifetime!

 

[downunderblue]

The leaders of the UK, France and Germany amongst others are flying to DC to support Zelensky against Trump. That hasn't happened in my lifetime!

The below is from a former SACEUR.

https://x.com/stavridisj/status/1957407985946198425

"Recommended uniform of the day for European visitors to the White House".

 

[Todjaeger]

What I am seeing is countries that have no previous alliance, that were in fact on opposite sides in the cold war sending material aid and training support.
Do you think countries that have fought and bleed together and have long standing defence pacts would do less for Australia?
Shakey as US support might seem now that one man will (hopefully) be gone in another three years.

Yes I while know that countries don't have friends they just have self interest, I have yet to have someone show where it is in our allies self interest to let Australia fall.

Apart from countries which are (or would be) in direct conflict with Australia it would not be within the 'self interests' of other countries, particularly friendly and allied ones, to let Australia fall or become a conquered/vassal state of another country.

Part of what has been the situation, more or less, in the post-WWII rules based order, is that countries are collectively not permitted to take over/subsume other countries and/or parts of their territories Yes, there have been some exceptions and certainly some failures, but more or less the goal seems to have been to try and avoid and prevent wars, whilst also providing opportunities for peoples/nations to advance. Maintaining the peace and prosperity has been something good for most nations, as it kept peace.

However, it is distinctly possible that scenarios where other countries could not/would not become involved in a conflict involving Australia, despite it being in their own respective national interests to do so, because of their respective security situations because they effectively lack the means or ability to do so. If the US is preoccupied by large scale and/or widespread armed internal conflict, then the US could very well not be in a position to come to Australia's aide if Australia asked. Similarly, if such events were to occur in the US, especially in or near any of the northern border states, that would draw a considerable amount of attention, concern and resources at Canada's disposal. IMO this would be especially true if US residents then began attempting to flee into Canada for safety, and/or armed combatants sought entrance to/passage through Canada, in order to strike at other targets within the US.

The potential security scenarios for other nations are different, but they do exist. Therefore Australia needs to make it's best efforts to establishing capabilities that it can make effective use of without relying upon aide from allies, just in case.

 

[iambuzzard]

Apart from countries which are (or would be) in direct conflict with Australia it would not be within the 'self interests' of other countries, particularly friendly and allied ones, to let Australia fall or become a conquered/vassal state of another country.

Part of what has been the situation, more or less, in the post-WWII rules based order, is that countries are collectively not permitted to take over/subsume other countries and/or parts of their territories Yes, there have been some exceptions and certainly some failures, but more or less the goal seems to have been to try and avoid and prevent wars, whilst also providing opportunities for peoples/nations to advance. Maintaining the peace and prosperity has been something good for most nations, as it kept peace.

However, it is distinctly possible that scenarios where other countries could not/would not become involved in a conflict involving Australia, despite it being in their own respective national interests to do so, because of their respective security situations because they effectively lack the means or ability to do so. If the US is preoccupied by large scale and/or widespread armed internal conflict, then the US could very well not be in a position to come to Australia's aide if Australia asked. Similarly, if such events were to occur in the US, especially in or near any of the northern border states, that would draw a considerable amount of attention, concern and resources at Canada's disposal. IMO this would be especially true if US residents then began attempting to flee into Canada for safety, and/or armed combatants sought entrance to/passage through Canada, in order to strike at other targets within the US.

The potential security scenarios for other nations are different, but they do exist. Therefore Australia needs to make it's best efforts to establishing capabilities that it can make effective use of without relying upon aide from allies, just in case.

Well said.

 

[Catalina]

If one's ultimate national strategy relies upon another nation, you don't have a national strategy, you have a hope.

 

[OldNavy63]

The below is from a former SACEUR.

https://x.com/stavridisj/status/1957407985946198425

"Recommended uniform of the day for European visitors to the White House".

View attachment 53334

I hope they remember to take a box of similar tee shirts for the Don, Vance et al.