"Australian naval strategy" Topic

link

Written 8 years ago, and still very relevant.

The thing that I see is:

1. "The common defense of Southeast Asia;" – this hasn't been a thing since 1989. Most of SE Asia is happy to play with the Chinese. They don't trust America or China and they certainly don't trust America's self appointed "deputy sheriff" (how one Australian PM described Australia's role).

Indonesia and Malaysia both criticised nuclear subs because it also makes their defence forces every more vulberable.

2. "Stabilization operations in the Southwest Pacific;" – any area nearly totally ignored by Australia. The Chinese are making huge inroads here. At least the Kiwis understand this.

3. Missions:

1. "Anti-surface and ASW operations in Northeast Asia, i.e. around Taiwan and in the Yellow Sea;"

Neither of which are in Australia's direct interest

2. A "distant blockade" of China operating in "maritime chokepoints" like the Malacca or Lombok Straits;
Barring Chinese naval vessels and nuclear submarines from threatening Allied shipping in the Indian Ocean;

Really prompting an aggressive approach from China.

"3. Operations directly off the Chinese mainland to achieve operational objectives in Southeast Asia and the approaches to Australia."

Now they're getting cocky! Amazing to assume Australia can play an offensive game against a large super power. Literally it's like assuming Poland or the Netherlands could have smacked the Nazis in Berlin.

Oh and Australia lacks the one things that makes any of those missions plausible – nuclear deterrent

If China nuked Australia, USA does not have to respond. In fact I doubt the US would risk nuclear annihilation over Australia.

Finally any war between Australia and China and Australian society grinds down to the stone age – this is a largely deindustrialised society that doesn't produce virtually any key products.

Even oil refining is a dying industry in Australia – most of the oil refineries have been closed and there's only a couple left, one of which will close.

The country is in a far worse industrial state than it was in 1939 especially as modern life is far more reliant on these goods.

----
The whole article presumes Australian subs can play some sort of offensive game that China does not counter

Furthermore like any western analysis it forgets the Chinese have their own subs, a substantial surface fleet an airforce, a nuclear deterrent as well as large quantities of sea mines and long range conventional missiles.

.Just to show how vulnerable Australia is:

1. Australia's coastline is 34,000 km.

2. There is a measly 4 operational minesweepers in Australian service. Two others are up for sale.

These will be replaced by a measly 2 MCM configured Arafura class ships.

China has up to 100,000 sea mines.

3. Australia has no land based air defence at all and no anti ballistic missile capability. It does have a good OTH radar that can cover the north/north west (Jindalee), but there is nothing covering the west or the heavily populated east.

Australia has no way of defending cities even if Jindalee uncovers attacks from the north.

4. Australia's surface navy will only amount to 12 warships (3 Hobart class + 9 Hunter class frigates) which is insufficient for convoy protection as well as protection of coastal waters.

China currently has 7 nuclear attack subs operational but by the time the RAN has got its first nuke sub in late 2030s or early 2040s there will probably be dozens of China nuke boats. including cruise missile armed ones.

Thus any Australian submarines won't be able to range out and dominate the Yellow Sea or blockade the Chinese as they will probably be busy trying to defend Australian coastal waters and sea lanes

So will they have no choice but to throw in with USN?

Yep, they have to throw in with US or alternatively take a more defensive stance with emphasis on regional alliance building.

The big problem with throwing it in with the Americans is that the Americans are unreliable. Everyone knows this, from the Europeans to the Afghans to the Iranians to the Filipinos and Malays in the SC Sea.

The current global situation is primarily the result of American unreliability and lack of strategic focus.

This new "treaty" is a great example. It doesn't guarantee US defence of Australia nor does it guarantee Australian involvement in any Asian conflict.* It does not involve most major friendly powers in the Indo-Pacific region – Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Canada possibly India or even France who has actual territories with over a million French people living in the Pacific.

It's a pact between 3 Anglo-Saxon states, one of which is a dying hasbeen and on the other side of the world and in a region where people aren't exactly trusting of Anglo-Saxons.

*ANZUS was the same by the way – no real commitments to anything.

Are the current D.E. subs service lives being considered for extension, in addition to the leasing/purchase of the SSNs?

They'd be good for defensive and offensive ops, respectively.

Thresher, no idea. Nothing has been released publicly.

The AUKUS Nuclear Attack Submarine: Good Luck with That, Australia

link

Armand