"Re-thinking Oz's defence plans" Topic

Debate Over Australia's Aukus Defence Strategy:

The Trump administration's AUKUS review of selling OZ nuclear subs in the AUKUS plan has sparked a lot of debate in Australia.

"Australia's nuclear submarine-led defence strategy under the Aukus agreement, estimated to cost up to $368 USD billion over 30 years, is facing scrutiny. Critics argue for evaluating cheaper alternatives, such as an 'echidna strategy' focusing on defensive capabilities like missiles and drones, rather than offensive nuclear submarines. Concerns include the high opportunity cost, potential cost blowouts, and risks related to US industrial capacity and submariner training, prompting a debate on Australia's long-term defence spending priorities."

link

The Echidna (native , prickly Australian animal) plan proposes that instead of relying on one, debatable and costly weapons system and an unstable & unreliable ally, precious defence dollars could go towards the alternative 'echidna strategy' focusing on defensive capabilities (airborne, missiles, maritime patrol aircraft, naval mines, drones). In other words, make OZ a tough nut to crack & not a collateral target when the US goes to war.

Certainly worth considering.

Yep defense costs money over long periods of time, especially ships. If they don't feel they can handle that and won't have enough sailors for the nuke boats they probably shouldn't do it. Relying on a purely defensive strategy sounds more risky. Have they looked at diesel boats? If they aren't projecting them they would work for a home first strategy but still give the benefits of submarines. UK subs in the Falklands put the Agentinian Navy on a back foot, from the little bits I've read. Subs lurking about are a threat to any naval force coming around whether they are in a striking position or not.

The French have a quite effective conventional sub that would be useful. I believe OZ had a contract for them prior to the AUKUS "agreement".Any Trump cancellations, postponements or changes would seem to negate AUKUS. "Yep defense costs money over long periods of time, especially ships. If they don't feel they can handle that" -you miss the point. It's the Yanks who are wobbly, not the Australians.

I'm sure I understand the concept of "America First".
It would be the height of hypocrisy for Americans not to recognise Australians should follow "Australia First" as well. To set yourself up as a target means you need to consider 'what's in it for us?'. There hasn't been a lot of American committent to honouring alliances lately so some distancing seems sensible. You can also argue that a putative enemy (China???) might feel less threatened if not confronted by a monolithic & hostile bloc.

You may have noticed I'm not the Australian Defence Minister so this is all speculative but a fairly hot topic in the Commonwealth at the moment.

And as for the risks of a defensive strategy, I'm reminded of the movie "Fort Apache", where the bellicose Henry Fonda rode to his death whilst the defensive-minded John Wayne survived.

link

The French have a quite effective conventional sub that would be useful. I believe OZ had a contract for them prior to the AUKUS "agreement".

The Barracuda/Suffren is a nuke boat which the CASG project team wanted to have re-designed as a conventional sub, Ochoin ( link ). There's a lot of other issues with the submarine plan, but I'd best not raise them here.

The biggest problem is that the pollies only think in terms of equipment and ignore personnel issues, forgetting that you need people to use the big, shiny toys the pollies and their subservient star-ranked officers love to buy. With low morale, separations over 11% across the forces ( link ), and recruiting targets not being met, it doesn't matter how big and shiny the toys are.

PS Echidna will only have a chance work if the regular ADF strength is much greater, and even then it will be a very slim chance. Oz is too big for the population, and what population there is is concentrated into 10 major cities. So two MWICBM and a look at a map means any threat larger than Norfolk Island can probably take us out.

The French have a quite effective conventional sub that would be useful. I believe OZ had a contract for them prior to the AUKUS "agreement".Any Trump cancellations, postponements or changes would seem to negate AUKUS. "Yep defense costs money over long periods of time, especially ships. If they don't feel they can handle that" -you miss the point. It's the Yanks who are wobbly, not the Australians.

Exactly – what use is making a plan to buy something, signing the deal, committing the funds if a few years in all the money spent to date is wasted on what seems like a tariff war whim?

Maybe Australia should look to Europe as a more reliable partner.

And Canada – the democracies of the world should stick together.

What's happening in Yank politics are never-never issues. There's a lot of other, domestic, issues that need to be solved first. A royal commission into CASG would be a good start.

"You can also argue that a putative enemy (China???) might feel less threatened if not confronted by a monolithic & hostile bloc."

No you can't. When has a potential enemy been deterred from attacking because their enemies were not monolithic and hostile?

Germany did not attack Denmark because they were hostile.
Germany did not attack Holland because of their monolithic agreements with France and the UK.

China wants world domination. They will take the long term and achieve it by hook or by crook. A defensive strategy means the China can choose when and where to attack, and in any strength they can muster.

I think Oz should have both diesel and nuke boats, diesel are cheaper and would work fine between the northern islands to the coast of Oz. But nuke boats are needed to take the war to the coast to China and put them on the defensive.

I think the US should lease Oz and existing nuke boat to give them experience in operation and deployment and then sell them more as ship building space becomes available.

President Trump is making noises all over the Allied world because too many allies are spending less than 1% on defense and depending on the US to make up the difference. We don't have the money to do that anymore.

Mike

-you miss the point. It's the Yanks who are wobbly, not the Australians.

It's the Australians talking about not having money to pay for military and social programs.

"No you can't"

Yes, I can.Your grasp on history is weak & this is a case of special pleading. Wanting something to be so is not the same as it being, factually, so. An unreliable & unstable ally is not to be relied upon. You want WW2? 1940 Britain relying on a demoralised French nation.I'm thinking the Ukraine might agree with me, here.

If Trump negates the deal (& billions of OZ dollars have already crossed hands) how do you think OZ can get nuclear subs? Steal them? Maybe Trump should stop "making noises all over the Allied world"? It's not working in terms of maintaining old alliances. Quite the opposite.

Good try, Striker. OZ is a wealthy nation & is talking about increasing an already considerable amount on defence spending, one way or another & has earmarked the funds for the nuke sub program.
If not AUKUS, why not echidna?

Making stuff up is not the same as looking at the facts.
link

Anyway, let's see how this pans out in Washington, which is where it will be decided. I doubt OZ will, at least, renege on old partnerships unless there is no alternative.

Good try? I'm looking at the article in the link. I didn't say Australia was poor or couldn't pay more, the article brings up money as an issue.

Such a price tag naturally comes with an opportunity cost paid by other parts of the defence force and leaves less money to address societal priorities, such as investing in regional diplomacy and accelerating the renewable energy transition.

Saul Eslake, an independent economist, says higher defence spending is coming at a time of substantially higher demands on the public purse across a range of areas, from aged care, to disability services and childcare.

At some point, Australians will need to grapple with how to pay for this extra spending, or to find areas where programs can be cut.

"The consensus across the political divide, and whether the public wants it or not, is that there will be more spending on defence," Eslake says.

+1, Striker. The current, and previous, governments have had some inventive ways of disguising the amount of debt they have accumulated, even declaring a budget surplus when there wasn't one. There's a lot of waste just in the Prime Minister and Cabinet department alone.

The link to the minister's media release is typical. The media release is misleading. He's only boasted about apparent successes and doesn't address any issue in full. (So SOP for governments all over the world, really.) Yes, recruitment is up ~19%, but still falls short of the required numbers. He doesn't address separation rates, either (they have plateaued, but are still historically on the high side).

As for increased Defence spending, that means nothing unless they sort out some of the current problems- the procurement side (CASG), reduce the officer:OR ratio ("officer:enlisted" in Yanklish- it was 1:2.9 in 2010 and hasn't changed much), clean out the excess star-ranked officers (more than double the number we had in 1944), and reinstate some conditions of service, to reduce separation.

But none of that makes for good ministerial photo opportunities.

Striker, Dal Gavan +1

As an Australian I'll wade into this discussion: here's my thoughts, happy to be convinced I'm wrong.

I think you first identify your enemies, then your allies, then the weapons you need to wield.

ENEMIES:
========
Our primary enemy is the Chinese Communist Party. Yes, they are currently our largest trading partner but politically they are our enemy. They have demonstrated this strongly in the years since COVID and even in the last few months. They have tried to bully and intimidate us into silence and inactivity as they rapidly spread their desire to dominate and control East Asia, South East Asia and the Pacific. (and no doubt after that the Globe). Clearly this also means that North Korea, a Pacific nation, is also an enemy to Australia.

Our secondary enemy is Putin's Russia. They have been Australia's enemy even longer – Czarist Russia was our enemy in the 1850's and Soviet Russia has been our enemy since October 1917. Modern India claims to be "non aligned" but in reality is an ally of Putin's Russia and therefore also a cause for concern and planning since we share a long coastline with the Indian Ocean. Possibly the Indian threat is in the medium to long term, not the immediate term like Russia, China, North Korea.

So for Australia both the Pacific and Indian oceans present military threats.

ALLIES:
=======
New Zealand has been our close and reliable ally in every sense of the word since our founding in 1901. NZ continues to be a trustworthy and reliable ally to this day.

Great Britain was our chief military ally from our settlement, by europeans, in 1788 right through to early 1942 when Great Britain, at the nadir of its own strength, could no longer support us. We still fought together in places and later in WW2 and then again in Korea but in the 1968 British "withdrawal-east-of-suez" they left us to fend for ourselves militarily and closed the economic door too when they joined the European Common Market in 1973.

Great Britain continues to be a trusted and reliable ally to Australia; but one that understandably is now distracted by Europe's rising threat in the East – Putin's Russia.

Canada is like NZ and has always been an ally of Australia and one that also shares a Pacific coast with us and NZ. We have fought side by side in WW1, WW2, Korea, the Gulf Wars, Afghanistan and who knows where else our Special Forces have operated. They remain a trusted friend and ally with a shared culture and views of the world, just like NZ.

The United States first became an Australian ally in July 1918 at the battle of Hamel on the western front. Australia had joined the allied struggle on August 5th 1914. Right at the beginning. The US waited till April 1917.

Again, in WW2, we joined the allied effort at the outbreak, September 1939, and when the US joined in December 1941 we welcomed them as an ally and offered sanctuary and co-operation to MacArthur when he fled The Philippines. Beside American ships at Guadalcanal and the Coral Sea were Australian ships and we formed the bulk of the allied infantry forces in the South West Pacific with support from American Infantry Divisions in New Britain, New Ireland, Papua New Guinea, the Dutch East Indies, Malaya, etc. There were Australian ships in the the naval battles all the way to Okinawa.

Then Korea, then Vietnam, then both Gulf Wars, then Afghanistan – and who knows where else our Special Forces have operated together.

But in the last few months our US Ally has clearly, and democratically chosen a new path, as is their right. The American people have voted to be less of an ally to pretty much everybody and isolationist, as they were between the wars. Not my place to question the national choice but for Australia we must face reality that an alliance of 80+ years is no more. Therefore at best the US is unpredictable and at worst unreliable as a partner that can be counted on in a tight spot. US forces MIGHT show up beside us and they MIGHT not. Recently the US has voted in the UN along with Russia and her allies and opposite Australia. Further evidence is in the recent treatment of Canada, Denmark, Ukraine and Taiwan. All of which is the clear choice of the American voters and I respect their wishes, but for the Australian people Russia and China are our real and present enemies.

Japan and South Korea have gradually become Australian allies since the end of WW2 and the Korean War. First we were trading partners. This continues. Recently we have identified both these nations capable of supplying us with weapons systems and equipment in a highly reliable fashion and we are drawing closer together. They share enemies with us in the Chinese Communist Party, Putin's Russia and the North Korean mad dogs.

Collectively the nations of South East Asia are an interesting mix of possible allies but mostly non-belligerents. The Philippines is an ally and needs our help against China and Australian ships regularly deploy to their waters. Our Special Forces operate with them against the muslim terrorists in the Southern Philippines. Indonesia is a friend but would be at best a non-belligerent versus China, likewise with Thailand. Singapore would possibly be an ally against Russia/India but at best a non-belligerent vs China. And so on.

WHAT DO WE NEED
===============
We only have a population of 26.6 million so any thought of building an army capable of fending off the Chinese Communist Party backed by 1.41 billion is just delusional in my view. We need high tech solutions to provide a threat to deter continued Chinese bullying. These solutions must be effective without large numbers of people to man, operate and maintain – because there isn't a lot of us to do that. A real deterrence to China is one that will threaten the Chinese Communist Party in their home cities and country. Just defending our coastline is an obsolete concept of the pre-satellite, pre-missile, mid 20th Century. Our enemies can cross the air-sea gap around our coastline and threaten our trading lanes easily in 2025.

Its not about money either in my view; I think this new focus on percentages-of-GDP-dedicated-to-defence is a naive approach reminiscent of the schoolyard.

Australia has 26.6 million people and a land mass the same size of the continental USA. It doesn't matter if we buy 1,000 planes we can't fly or maintain 10,000 or 1,000 tanks we cant operate or maintain. its not about money its about people, population base. Or buy a thousand missiles we couldn't launch, a thousand drones we couldn't operate. Laughable thinking. We've tried Fortress Australia before and it hasn't worked well, too much coastline and empty space to surveil. And AI can't be relied upon to do it for us (I'm a retired digital systems engineer) not for many years and too easy to spoof by an enemy also deploying AI.

So what are our realistic options:

PLAN A
======
I think the AUKUS idea was a good one in 2021, buy a small fleet of super stealthy nuclear powered submarines that the Chinese could not detect and so could never be sure where they were – lying on the sea floor off Shanghai or hanging around the Malacca Straights – ready to launch powerful cruise missiles at the Great Hall of the Communist People in Beijing or Xi's latest Summer Palace in the south, etc. We have the population to operate and maintain such a deterrence weapon system. The cost doesn't really matter as I said.

But it was only a good idea when the UK was interested in the Indo-Pacific and had the bandwidth to be involved. And when the US was a reliable and trustworthy ally interested in the Indo-Pacific then AUKUS made sense. I'm not so sure now and certainly neither nation can now be counted on to sell us the submarines required in the 2030's.

PLAN B
======
Buy some quickly acquirable state-of-art diesel subs to tide us over till the 2040's when the British SSN AUKUS boats just MIGHT start to become available (I still think stealthy nuclear powered boats are the best solution). Not the French offering – we've tried that. The French nuclear powered boats offer half the reactor life, not long enough, please convince me I'm wrong. And the French diesel boats, we've tried that. 6 years on from the contract signing and the price had tripled and not a single keel had been laid, the French NAVAL builder is all talk.

Up until a week ago I might've said try Germany or Japan and buy their off-the-rack diesel models but I've firmed that we should deal with Japan and buy their boats. Germany will be focused on their and Europes needs and we'll be too low a priority. Nope, its Japan, a quality builder and a quality ally who values and respects us. If I was the Defence Chief I'd be on the phone to Japan and place an immediate order for 3 of the boats, off the rack, delivered ASAP with an option for 3 more. This will have to tide us over through the 2030's. Its possible the US people will get tired of living in isolation from everyone and a future administration might be prepared to sell 3 Virginia Class SSN's – still the peak technology – at some point in the early 2030's.

PLAN C
======
Its possible to threaten to deliver missiles to Xi's Summer Palace in some other ways – I think standard ICBM's are probably too easily detected and shot down but a stealthy long range strategic bomber fleet might be able to deliver them. Not easy still but might be something we could staff and maintain. Some US B-21's would be ideal, or even used B-2 Spirits would get the job done but again we run into the reality of trying to be a customer of the US. Who else produces stealthy, long range, strategic bombers? Dont know that the Europeans offer anything because they don't need the range to reach their great enemy. Maybe Japan is developing something?

PLAN D
=======
Is there another option?

But in the last few months our US Ally has clearly, and democratically chosen a new path, as is their right. The American people have voted to be less of an ally to pretty much everybody and isolationist, as they were between the wars.

I don't agree with that assessment. Let's not forget that the Australian Labor Party openly supported Biden during the 2024 U.S. election and attacked Trump repeatedly, with figures like Albanese saying Trump "scares the s**t out of me" and Ambassador Kevin Rudd calling him "the most destructive president in history," and "a Traitor to the West."

It's no surprise, then, that Trump isn't warmly inclined toward Australia's current leadership. That's not isolationism—it's a direct response to how Australia positioned itself politically. Trump expects allies to carry their weight, especially on defense and trade. Australia may meet the 2% defense spending target (after Trump's prodding in his first term as president), but under AUKUS, the perception remains that the U.S. gives more than it gets.

Also, the perception remains that Australia is far too reliant and close to China economically, that the current government has in large part not taken meaningful steps to decouple from China.

The U.S. hasn't turned isolationist—it's recalibrating how it engages with allies who show commitment via actions, not just words.

so any thought of building an army capable of fending off the Chinese Communist Party backed by 1.41 billion is just delusional in my view. We need high tech solutions to provide a threat to deter continued Chinese bullying.

I agree. The army and RAAF will only ever be early warning systems (RAAF), and guerillas/speed bumps (army, if the PLA lands), with stings in their tails. But in the meantime we also have UN and humanitarian tasks, and participation in "coalition wars" like Afghanistan to consider. To meet those requirements effectively personnel have to be adequately trained, equipped and have a reliable experience base in unit NCO and field officers ("battalion officers" in Yanklish). Bleeding SNCO, WO, senior captains and majors is not conducive to that aim.

Nor is farming out the support services, as we did with DIDS, and rely on contractors for maintenance and supply support. At first glance "privatisation" looks cheaper and easier to do that than to develop an equipment support plan, train people to supply and maintain equipment. It's not. DIDS and the reintroduction of SMP in CASG are more expensive, less efficient and hurt capabilities. (I'd really like the AFP or IG to have close looks at those, and other DMO/CASG decisions, and the "motivation" for them- but they won't/can't….)

Buy some quickly acquirable state-of-art diesel subs to tide us over till the 2040's

That's the best way forward, nukes or not, Nick. But both sides of the argument want to use any new sub's to build out maritime defence industry- otherwise we'd have bought the Japanese Oyashio class "off the shelf", 23 years ago. Developing a maritime defence industry is a good idea in itself, but the Collins class and frigate programmes failed to do that. Why?

link

"The adults in the room" have prevailed.

I'm glad we're still allies.

@ SB minis.

You seem to be having trouble differentiating between free & equal allies & subservient boot-lickers.

You'd better not read these statistics then-
link

The amount of capital the US has squandered in just a few months…..

PS Nick, the DIDS to which I referred is the Defence Integrated Distribution System (the one sold to Tenix Toll in 2008/9 over the objections of the project manager and senior staff- have a look at first link to see who was the new "consultant" a few months later). It's not the Defence Industry Development Strategy- last year's roll of bumph from Russell Offices.

link

link

President Trump is making noises all over the Allied world because too many allies are spending less than 1% on defense and depending on the US to make up the difference. We don't have the money to do that anymore.

That is the bottom line … regardless …

FWIW – I'm really very sure of the US and Oz will always be allies/BFFs, etc. …

Like any relationship there will be a little disagreement from time to time. But in the end its all good.

@ SB minis.

You seem to be having trouble differentiating between free & equal allies & subservient boot-lickers.

Don't need "Bootlickers" -- how about trying not to be ?

41% of respondents said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

Ah yes…the man who publicly supported Trump's rival, and who personally insulted Trump many times. That's gonna endear Australia to the current presidential Admin – and like a cabbage fart in the room, will linger after into successive Republican administrations.

I mean, it's pretty stupid to personally attack the leader of your single largest ally and then expect that not to impact relations, yes?

"But Australians continue to show that they still separate the unpredictability of the White House from the role the alliance plays in our security."

LOL – Trump is the MOST predictable president in modern memory. He tells you what he wants, then he tells you what he's gonna do, they he does what he said he'd do. How surprising!

Oh well.

"He tells you what he wants, then he tells you what he's gonna do,"

So far so good but the invariable follow-up is he blinks. Every time.

It's pretty stupid to undermine & attack all your allies too.
Ever considered that?

So far so good but the invariable follow-up is he blinks. Every time.

Examples please.

SBm +1

Usa wants Nato allies to spend 5% of gdp on defence.

Usa spends 3.4%.

Need to up your game Usa.

🙄

Maybe the US is waiting for the rest of NATO to pay 5% ? 🤔 Maybe some of the other NATO members should pick up their games ?

Based on the past the US maybe waiting a long time. 👻 Regardless the US still has a lot of bang for the buck at 3.4%. Maybe now under the new admin the US won't be wasting money on a lot of unneeded initiatives, etc. Like funding LGBTQ projects in foreign nations. Giving NGOs $ for illegal aliens, etc. 💸💸💸 Theres a good start.

A billion here … a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real $!💰💰💰

The priority of any nation is protection of its population. Those two projects I mentioned is a big waste of $ … Yes ? Has 0 to do with protecting the US population … I'm pretty sure …

The one thing we will not be getting from this government is a balanced budget or a deficit reduction, based on the Big whatever bill. I don't trust these guys any more than the last, and I live here.

Relationships with Trump do not work using traditional statesmanship. If you can't read him, you don't have one. And you cannot always go by what he promises on the campaign trail. He does not always do what he says. He changes his mind, like any leader. He reacts. Example, the impact of deportations on labor for agriculture and other sectors recently, he does not want to lose the farm vote. And there are no significant economic deals with China or many others. Tariffs are off, then on again. It's his tactical style, more chaotic than we are used to. Still too early to tell how it all will work.

You lead from the front, not the back.

Since there seems to be some confusion regarding the NATO 5% level – the level which the US seems to already spend

3.5% for core military spending:
This portion would cover traditional defense expenditures such as personnel costs, equipment procurement (including research and development), and operational costs.

1.5% for related areas:
This category includes investments in areas that indirectly support military capabilities and strengthen overall security, such as:

Infrastructure: Upgrading roads, bridges, and other infrastructure to improve military mobility and facilitate the movement of troops and equipment.
Cybersecurity: Strengthening defenses against cyberattacks and ensuring the security of critical infrastructure and communication networks.

Dual-use systems: Investments in technologies that have both civilian and military applications, fostering innovation and enhancing overall defense capabilities.

Defense industrial base: Supporting the defense industry to increase production capacity and ensure a reliable supply of military equipment.

You lead from the front, not the back.

FWIW I was a Rifle Plt Ldr, in the 101 and Mech Co. Cdr with a Mech Bde attached to the 18th ABN Corps. Please you don't have to tell me about leading.

If I recall the US has been leading from the front for a long time. The POTUS just wants the rest NATO to do their part. Peace thru strength …

AGamer I believe you are correct, good reminder … But again, if the US was only spending e.g. 3.4%. That 3.4 % is worth more than many others in NATO. But NATO is still allies with the US and vis versa. And will still be for a long time.

Since Putin woke Europe up to the fact that the Russians are still a threat to the West. However not as much as they were. Taking horrendous losses at the NATO supported Ukranian Forces …

If the measure is a % of gdp and 5 is the level required then the usa value of 3.4 is 68% of the target.

68% is not a great level of performance.

Maybe setting 3.4% as the target would have made more sense if one is trying to say usa does more than other allies. Even with that, Poland does 4.2% making the usa still look very bad by comparison.

If you use total dollars spent then sure a nation of 330 million spends more than a nation of 10 million.

That's why % of gdp is used as a measure.

20th Maine – your arrgument misses the point – the other 1.5% componennt pieces are buried in every other US Department.

For example – Cyber Security is also a function of our FBI, NSA, Transportation and others, not just DOD. You are quoting stats from a "Core Military Expenditure Nato table" and using them as a "total" – Apples and Oranges.

No one, currently, is calculating the NATO member's expenditures for the other components

Agamer +1

I think it works the other way around as well – many US civilian projects are funded under the military budget. I seem to remember that US Army Engineers are responsible for dredging certain rivers to keep them navigable. The Governor of California is now complaining that the National Guard that has been taken away from his command would otherwise be helping to fight forest fires. Does the Coastguard come under the Military budget ? It performs duties that combine UK police and Border Force (civil) and the RNLI (voluntary, funded by donations).

I think my argument is exactly hitting the point.

Usa spends 3.4% counting direct military.

Now trying to claim that is 5% by adding in river dredging etc

Compares that 5% figure to other nations but counts only their direct military spending.

Tries to pass off innumeracy as a viable stick to beat others with.

And gets annoyed when someone points out that they don't know how to count.

Dagwood I believe you are correct. And yes the US Army Corps of Engineers are responsible for dredging, etc. of rivers in the US.

The Governor of California is now complaining that the National Guard that has been taken away from his command would otherwise be helping to fight forest fires.

That Gov and LA mayor dropped the ball massively with their annual fires.

AFAIK Constitutionally the POTUS can Federalize the NG and send in regular forces to protect Federal property and Federal personnel, etc. E.g. protecting ICE agents rounding up illegal aliens.

In the 101 at times, we trained for riot control operations. Could be sent to protect Fed assets or e.g. critical infrastructures, including weapons and munition manufacturers, etc.

Does the Coastguard come under the Military budget ?

It can work with the Military and does. IIRC in comes under the DHS and their budget. And of course they are Federal assets.

From the net :

Yes, the Coast Guard is part of the United States Armed Forces and the Department of Homeland Security.

But I think it has a separate budget. IIRC the newest US Military Branch – Space Force comes under the DOD budget.

Regardless, whether 2%, 3.4% or 5%. Right now the US is the only military that has/can use GBU-57s and provide support to the IDF. To rid the world of one of the most fanatical islamic regimes. Who are obsessed with getting nukes. That is bottom line … That is what is important not saying the US is not paying their fair share to NATO. That really has little to do with this …

"Usa wants Nato allies to spend 5% of gdp on defence.Usa spends 3.4%.Need to up your game Usa."-20th Maine

This has more to with our allies and years of neglect of their militarizes. They need to make up for years of free loading and they need to start now with some of their production builds. This will require more than just the basic 2% of GDP. When our allies are weak they are no longer deterrents and actually become liabilities.

I will use this analogy, it is like belonging to an HOA and you have a bunch of delinquent members that haven't paid their dues. Suddenly their is a crisis and the delinquent members finally pay their monthly dues and are very vocal and loud about it, "See I paid my 2%". Great you paid your current monthly HOA fee but that does not fix the past or get us through the current crisis or what is coming. The delinquent HOA members then start caterwauling about what is fair and expect the HOA members that have been paying all along to suddenly pay a special assessment to make up for the short fall.

Our allies need to buy and maintain military hardware, logistic stockpiles and have trained combat units.

@ Ochoin and Dal Gavan

I would remind you the USA fought, bled and died in those wars beside you also. Your participation is not some how more special than the USA participation in those conflicts. Your attempts to drag up the past is a cheap deflection tactic to the real current problem.

The real problem is the Australian military is woefully unprepared (like many of our allies…) and you both seem to admit that… So whether you buy nuclear submarines from us or have a tantrum and buy diesel subs from the UK or come up with some other alternative I don't care. At the end of the day you will have done something, spent some GDP and actually done what should have been done all along. It will be painful and you will curse the USA every inch of the way. You can trash talk the USA all you want but at the end of the day Australia will have done something…

Or maybe Australia will do nothing at all…

@ Ochoin and Dal Gavan

I would remind you the USA fought, bled and died in those wars beside you also. Your participation is not some how more special than the USA participation in those conflicts. Your attempts to drag up the past is a cheap deflection tactic to the real current problem.

I suggest you go back and read my posts, chum. My criticisms were about the state of the ADF. My only comment about the US is that what they are doing is of secondary importance to what Oz needs to do, in order to address our domestic problems. Is that the "trash talk" you're so upset about?

Stop getting a hold on yourself, Yank.

Dragon Gunner, were you replying to nsolomon ?

Yes I was responding to nsolomon.

My apologies Dal Gavin and Ochoin.

I am getting tired of this theme the USA has betrayed and turned on it's Allie's. The USA has not left our alliances but we have put everyone firmly on notice that the status quo is no longer acceptable and if we do not see meaningful change the relationship might end or be renegotiated. Our Allie's are not victims and I am tired of any argument perpetuating that myth or even hints it.

Yeah i figured Dagwood was correct. Dal's a pretty good guy.

I meant on TMP Dal, don't want your mates to think you're getting soft. 😉🙂

Dragon +1

Dal +1

OVI +1

Striker +1

"Usa wants Nato allies to spend 5% of gdp on defence.Usa spends 3.4%.Need to up your game Usa.

Guess some didn't know this. All members of NATO have to agree to everyone paying the same % of due. No matter what.

Now some nations can pay more, IIRC Greece was paying e.g. 4%. Because of The Greeks and their neighbors Turkey don't get along very well. E.g. Turkey's invasion of Cyprus in the 70s. Their animosity goes a long way back. Way before that …

Spain has recently said "Nada", they don't have the 💰 to go 5%. At last reported IIRC, both Poland and Germany have a long history. Not all of it "Happy" … And a lot closer to Russia than Spain. The SCW before WWII and the Spanish Blue Div during WWII taken into account.

Regardless, the POTUS, being a businessman. Probably knew some in NATO have not/could pay NATO's dues totally or otherwise. Some I think may not have been paying at all, IIRC. But again I think the POTUS also knew some in NATO would go beyond the NATO dues standard.

Also again, e.g. 20th Maine, regardless, the USA is the most deployable, most powerful member of NATO being #1 of NATO's strength. Followed by a distant 2d – Turkey …

Plus repeating myself NO one in NATO or the world can do what the USA can do, in the numbers, etc. that the USA can. Not saying that other NATO members don't have capable militaries. E.g. UK, Poland, France, etc. among others. But let's be realist. As good as the units in those. The US can project power faster and farther and larger numbers. Then anyone else in NATO. Or the world for that matter.

By faulting the US for NATO dues. Reminds me of the joke. You bought your galpal a brand-new car last week. But now a few days later she asks, "but what have you done for me lately ?" … 🤔🤨

Dragon, this is a good point. The reality is somewhere in the middle IMO… But when and if the chips are down, no one can stand alone….

Just saw on FOX or Newsmax, reported that someone, I missed who, (DOH!). Was quoted saying, IIRC " We are all anti-war but we can't be anti-reality …

The UN is having an emergency meeting about this current war in the Mid East. However, we know most in the UN are vastly anti-Israel/anti-Jew. And some are not friends of the US, although they take the millions of $ we give them.

Plus as always with Russian & China being part of the UN P5. If the UK, the US and France, i.e. the rest of the P5. If we say the sky is blue both Russia and China will disagree.

Also so the CCP said they would help broker peace between Israel and Iran. They must have forgot the US has a new cognizant, dynamic, wide awake etc. POTUS.

I'd trust Xi as much as Putin to put their spin on this. Plus the CCP has flown 3 747s to Tehran. But no word why ? What did the bring to the Ayatollah and/or what are they taking out ? Trust Putin or Xi ? I don't think so …

China and Russia don't have the resources to project conventional force in the region. This is great example for the Repubs in Congress. Stop counting the number of Chinese frigates and look at the amount of firepower the US can bring to bear literally anywhere on earth. Fix procurement, listen to the Navy, keep us on top.

But no matter what happens this is still the ME. Thousands of years of fighting and hatred. There is no real lasting peace to negotiate. Fanatics….they will recruit new fighters off of this, after a while the next Hezbollah will appear.

China planes?

More missiles and drones?
Evacuating information, equipment and individuals? (Israel should put the airports out of commission)
biological weapons?