Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Lethe said:

So there's something that has been bothering me for a while.

Australia plans to expand its fleet of submarines to 12 units. Australia also plans to operate 12 major surface combatants: three Hobart-class destroyers, and nine future frigates replacing the current eight ANZAC-class frigates.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture? Is there any other navy in the world that operates as many submarines as it does surface combatants?

Of course different countries have different requirements. But a submarine is fundamentally an offensive tool to threaten enemy warships and merchant shipping. The basic strategic tasks for the RAN are to maintain the territorial integrity of Australia -- and submarines can certainly help with that by threatening enemy amphibs, aircraft carriers, and the like -- and to maintain the flow of trade, i.e. to protect merchant shipping. The latter calls for ASW and AAW surface escorts, not submarines.

At first glance Australia's force structure appears unbalanced, which invites one to consider exactly how the figure of twelve submarines was arrived at in the first place. Apparently it has subsequently been validated by committee, but so far as I know such an expansion -- a quite radical doubling of the existing submarine fleet -- was first aired as a thought-bubble by then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and which subsequently found its way into the 2013 defence white paper where it became the new orthodoxy.

So the question is if a future combat inventory consisting of 50% submarines is really the correct path for Australia.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

I think the only logical conclusion one can come to -- and which I think has been obvious for a while now -- is that Australia's basic strategic tasks are different to what you laid out.

Click to expand...

Lethe said:

Should've been four or five units produced as part of a rolling integrated national shipbuilding plan. The creation of such a plan is one of the few real achievements of the present government.

Click to expand...

Land 400 contenders try on the Aus Air Force C-17 for size and fit

Click to expand...

Jura said:

gosh
Navy's largest ships unable to join Cyclone Debbie emergency response amid engine troubles

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Propulsion issues that tied the Royal Australian Navy’s two landing helicopter docks to port for four months are set to be resolved this week, according to the Royal Australian Navy.

The navy said HMAS Adelaide is due to leave the dry dock at Navy’s Fleet Base East on June 27 after completing maintenance.

Once undocked, she will undergo sea trials and return to her operational capability program over the next few months.

Canberra completed initial propulsion sea trials in May, which together with advice from industry partners indicates she is able to return to sea on June 29 and will participate in Exercise Talisman Sabre 2017.

Defence has been working closely with the original equipment manufacturers – BAE, Navantia and Siemens – to identify the root causes of the issues.

As previously reported, Adelaide moved into the dry dock at Navy’s Fleet Base East in May, and Defence has undertaken a range of activities including access to, and a detailed inspection of the propulsion pods, defect rectification and maintenance.

The docking and inspection of Adelaide identified wear in some bearings in the port pod which is assessed to be the likely cause of oil contamination.

The propulsion system of Canberra has been recertified for seagoing operations with minor restrictions in place until her planned docking in 3rd quarter of 2017.

Both ships are expected to return to full service before the end of the year following these periods of defect rectification, maintenance and trials.

Click to expand...

Australia advances G550 surveillance fleet plans
Australia is advancing with its planned acquisition of up to five Gulfstream G550s adapted for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and electronic warfare duties, with the approximately $1.3 billion deal having secured approval from the US State Department.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Since [the USA's "pivot to Asia" in 2011] the mantra [that Australia "does not have to choose" between America and China] has been simply untrue. We are choosing between America and China, all the time, as we try to assure America that we are supporting them against China, and we try to assure China that we are not. So, for example, we have joined Washington in denouncing China’s conduct in the South China Sea, but avoided Beijing’s displeasure by resisting US pressure to conduct FoNops.

We agreed to host Marines in Darwin, but denied that had anything to do with China. We joined China’s AIIB but avoided any explicit endorsement of OBOR. The list goes on. The reality is that every decision we make about our support for America is judged by how it will be read in Beijing, and vice versa. This is the most powerful factor in Australia’s foreign policy today.

Some might call this delicate balancing act a commendable example of agile diplomacy. One could also call it a pattern of systematic duplicity, which is fooling no one but ourselves. Diplomatic duplicity has its place when it is used in support of a clear and credible strategy, but not as a substitute for one.

Ultimately, this duplicity is futile. Whether we have to choose between America and China has very little to do with us. It depends on them, on how intense their rivalry becomes, and on what they choose to demand of us. The more intense their rivalry grows, the more they will each demand of us, and the starker our choices will become.

It is perfectly possible that sometime, perhaps quite soon, their rivalry will reach the point that one or other of them confronts us with a choice which would upset our balancing act and force us to fundamentally alienate one side or the other. ‘We don’t have to choose’ is no more than a statement of blind faith that this will not happen.

Click to expand...

Australia and the United States began their biggest ever joint military exercises on Thursday, a show of force, largely at sea, aimed at sending a message both to allies and potential foes, including China.

The exercises involving 33,000 U.S. and Australian troops on board battleships equipped with strike jets, comes as tension over China's more assertive activity, particularly in the disputed South China Sea, has raised fears of confrontation.

Admiral Harry Harris, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, asked how he thought China would view the exercises, said the size of the deployment was intended as a signal.

"I'm pleased about that message it sends our friends, allies, partners and potential adversaries," Harris told reporters on board the USS Bonhomme Richard.

Relations between the United States and China have soured in recent months as the United States seeks to counter what it perceives as Chinese assertiveness in the Pacific, encapsulated by Beijing's artificial island building in the South China Sea.

China claims most of the resource-rich South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan also have claims on the waterway.

The United States estimates China has added more than 3,200 acres (1,300 hectares) of land on seven reefs and tiny isles in the South China Sea over the past three years, installing runways, ports, aircraft hangars and communications equipment.

James Curran, professor of politics and foreign policy at the University of Sydney, said the exercise illustrated the close military ties between the United States and Australia but could raise worry in China about being surrounded.


"When there are concerns about China's activities in the South China Sea, this military exercise will send a signal and take on greater significance," Curran said.

"China will be concerned if it looks like containment, when you have Australia, the United States and others trying to gang-up on China."

The exercise will go on for a month in Australian territorial waters and will include training in land and air operations.

Click to expand...

Defence Minister Marise Payne has responded to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s suggestion that Australia’s submarines should be nuclear by pointing out the list of problems preventing Australia choosing nuclear-propelled boats.

“We don’t have a civil nuclear industry, we don’t have the personnel or the experience or infrastructure, we don’t have the training facilities or regulatory systems that you would need to design to operate to construct a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines,” Senator Payne said.

And she pointed out that Mr Abbott was prime minister when the process to choose new submarines started.

“What we are in fact doing is delivering the plan to acquire the plan that was set out and agreed by Tony Abbott and his team in 2015,” Senator Payne said.

She rejected Mr Abbott’s idea of Australia leasing nuclear-powered submarines from the United States by arguing Australia had to own such vital military equipment.

“We want to ensure we have sovereign capability over this extraordinarily important strategic military capability.”

Click to expand...

Jura said:

understandably Minister rejects N-sub option

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...