AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.

[Lethe]

New Zealand only has one active frigate it's other frigate is under going maintenance.

They also have two offshore patrol boats but they are laid up due to man power shortages

So basically New Zealand has sent the totally of it's active naval power out to follow the PLAN

In the lead up to what became the ANZAC-class frigates for Australia and New Zealand, my understanding is that RNZN wanted four frigates, thought they could get by with three if they really had to, and ended up with two. RNZN is now contemplating their eventual replacements, and having a PLAN task force sail by is probably quite useful for RNZN in pressing the case for acquiring more than two frigates this time around. The British Type 31 design has been floated as one possible candidate.

 

[zyklon]

I only tangentially followed what can only be described as a total freak out by the Australians, but what I have seen of the responses range from the ridiculous to the downright pathetic.

They have been needlessly keen in going out of their way to needle and provoke China in the SCS and Taiwan Straits for little more reason than because they can and want to in order to score points domestically and abroad, and now a tiny PLAN flotilla does some gunnery practice in international waters hundreds of miles away from their coast and they are outraged and hysterically alarmed. Have a tiny bit of chill mate and stop acting like a total pansy why don’t you? It’s embarrassing.

The thing is most Australians, like most Americans, have absolutely no idea that their country's naval forces have been snooping around and instigating drama thousands of miles away from home in China's "maritime backyard."

Obviously, some Australians will put two and two together, and realize that China is effectively reciprocating in kind.

Unfortunately, one should fully expect most Australians to mistake the matter for unprovoked aggression because they tend to have no idea what their own government and military have been up to.

If you are so desperately afraid of the big bad panda bear coming to your house to pay you a return visit, why did you keep going to shit in front of his house and in his garden in the first place?

Mistaking one's self to be invincible or invulnerable tends to be a sign of immaturity, and Australia is indeed rather young by the standards of nations and civilizations.

However, this current situation does afford Beijing a couple of new openings:

1. Beijing call now basically tell Canberra: "Tune it down in our backyard, and we'll reciprocate in kind." Canberra isn't ready for such a de-escalation, yet, but it benefits Beijing to have an extra lever to pull moving forward.

2. The RAN and RAAF are going to have to devote resources to shadowing and surveiling future "visiting PLAN delegations." Considering the relative size of the RAN, that will mean fewer hulls for other missions, especially if the PLAN plans to "say hello" regularly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The funny thing is that there are 144 VLS cells between 107 Zunyi and 568 Hengyang, while the entire RAN has a grand total of 200 VLS cells divided between three Hobart DDGs with 48 VLS cells each and seven Anzac FFGs with 8 VLS cells each.

Therefore, perhaps it will be right or maybe even wise for the Australian authorities to fear the "big bad panda bear" given the balance of power.

It's a joint surveillance effort. HMAS Arunta was shadowing the group in an earlier phase.

Looks like they are going to circumnavigate the continent. Will be interesting to see how close they pass by HMAS Stirling (a facility, not a ship) on the south-west coast HMAS Stirling is currently undergoing upgrades to host US, UK and (eventually, notionally) Australian nuclear submarines, so PLAN may well pop around and say hello.

EDIT: USS Minnesota SSN-783 is

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

at HMAS Stirling as we speak.

The PLAN obviously needs to deploy a network of sensors in waters near HMAS Stirling, and that can be accomplished more discreetly with submarines. Though surface vessels tend to be a part of the process too.

Makes you wonder if there's a Type 093 of some variety accompanying the 107 Zunyi led task force, or otherwise headed towards HMAS Stirling as the surface vessels draw the mainstay of RAN's attention.

 

[siegecrossbow]

The thing is most Australians, like most Americans, have absolutely no idea that their country's naval forces have been snooping around and instigating drama thousands of miles away from home in China's "maritime backyard."

Obviously, some Australians will put two and two together, and realize that China is effectively reciprocating in kind.

Unfortunately, one should fully expect most Australians to mistake the matter for unprovoked aggression because they tend to have no idea what their own government and military have been up to.



Mistaking one's self to be invincible or invulnerable tends to be a sign of immaturity, and Australia is indeed rather young by the standards of nations and civilizations.

However, this current situation does afford Beijing a couple of new openings:

1. Beijing call now basically tell Canberra: "Tune it down in our backyard, and we'll reciprocate in kind." Canberra isn't ready for such a de-escalation, yet, but it benefits Beijing to have an extra lever to pull moving forward.

2. The RAN and RAAF are going to have to devote resources to shadowing and surveiling future "visiting PLAN delegations." Considering the relative size of the RAN, that will mean fewer hulls for other missions, especially if the PLAN plans to "say hello" regularly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The funny thing is that there are 144 VLS cells between 107 Zunyi and 568 Hengyang, while the entire RAN has a grand total of 200 VLS cells divided between three Hobart DDGs with 48 VLS cells each and seven Anzac FFGs with 8 VLS cells each.

Therefore, perhaps it will be right or maybe even wise for the Australian authorities to fear the "big bad panda bear" given the balance of power.



The PLAN obviously needs to deploy a network of sensors in waters near HMAS Stirling, and that can be accomplished more discreetly with submarines. Though surface vessels tend to be a part of the process too.

Makes you wonder if there's a Type 093 of some variety accompanying the 107 Zunyi led task force, or otherwise headed towards HMAS Stirling as the surface vessels draw the mainstay of RAN's attention.

You are forgetting that just HMAS Stirling has more fire extinguishers and water proof doors than all of PLAN combined. CHECK MATE Tankie!

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Here's an idea: a base in East Timor.

We could station a couple of 052Ds—or even 054As—there, and that would already put considerable pressure on the Australians. It would also complicate any U.S. operations out of Darwin.

Politically, East Timor would be eager for this, given its need for defense and its close relationship with the PRC.

I consider East Timor a likely candidate for the PLA's overseas expansion, along with a potential presence in the Solomon Islands region in the Pacific—although that might be further down the road.

 

[zyklon]

Noticed that there were some significant misunderstandings concerning the naval balance of power between the RAN and PLAN in the "Miscellaneous News" thread, and thought it'd be more productive to continue the discourse here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You do realize that is not possible.

The principal surface combatants of the Royal Australian Navy consist of three Hobart class destroyers, each equipped with a 48 cell Mk 41 VLS, and seven older Anzac class frigates, each equipped with an 8 cell Mk 41 VLS.

I've read the 144 VLS cells between the Type 055 and 054 warships combined equal to around 70% of the entire Australian naval fleet combined.

Therefore, if we are only counting VLS cells, and not deck mounted AShM launchers, then the above absolutely is indeed possible and in fact the case.

I doubt even 10 type 055 can realistically destroy Australian navy or other assets.

The Royal Australian Navy is fairly sizable and capable for a state with a population not much bigger than that of Taiwan province.

Let's take a look at just what's usually deployable for the RAN. I'm going to be generous, and temporarily ignore the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in assessing what the RAN can send into battle at any given time, but in case anyone was curious:

It’s understood shortages of navy-qualified marine and electrical engineers are acute, with the vessels unable to go to sea without sufficient personnel in the key roles.

The nation’s most potent warships – the Hobart-class air warfare destroyers – are also suffering crewing issues due to a shortage of combat system operators.

The dire workforce shortages are likely to have added to the government’s reluctance to send a vessel to join a dangerous US-led operation in the Red Sea to protect international shipping from Iranian-backed Houthis.

Owing to a lack of trained personnel, the RAN even prematurely decommissioned one Anzac frigate last year, as in 2024, and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

In the shorter term, the two oldest Anzac class frigates; HMAS Anzac and HMAS Arunta will be decommissioned early, with HMAS Anzac to be decommissioned this year and Arunta in 2026.

So that means Australia will be down to six Anzacs and a total of 192 VLS cells by 2026!

Anyhow, let's supposed things in terms of manning, as well as sustainment and maintenance, are running smoothly for the RAN, and if that was the case, the RAN would have at a minimum of one Hobart, two Anzacs, and one of their two Canberra class LHDs on or available for immediate deployment at any given time.

In the event of an in extremis situation, the RAN should be able to simultaneously deploy two Hobarts, four Anzacs, one Canberra, and one additional Canberra or the LSD they got second hand from the British.

Keep in mind everything else in the RAN's inventory, and also including their two LHDs and one LSD, are only armed with guns. No missiles, not even torpedos, except for their six aging Collins class diesel electric submarines.

However,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and the entire fleet of six hulls will need $4-5 billion AUD in overhauls and upgrades to remain serviceable into the 2030s:

The federal government has signed a $2.2 billion, four-year deal with the national submarine builder ASC to ensure the navy's existing Collins submarines are still functioning into the 2030s.

The contract is part of a broader $4 to $5 billion spend on ensuring the serviceability of the Collins submarines, after half of the fleet was found to have significant corrosion damage earlier this year.

HMAS Sheehan, HMAS Farncomb and HMAS Rankin have all been ruled out of action for the rest of 2024, meaning the navy has only three submarines at its disposal.

So realistically speaking one, maybe at most two Collins are available for or on patrol at any given time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Please don't worry: the PLAN is not going to deploy ten Type 055 destroyers against Australia anytime soon. For starters, the PLAN doesn't even have that many deployable 055s.

However, the reality is that the RAN effectively consists of three miniature expeditionary strike groups centered around a LHD or LSD and escorted by a reasonably modern 7,000 ton Hobart destroyer and a couple of older 3,600 ton Anzac frigates, usually with one such grouping ready to be assembled and deployed at any given time to serve as a sidekick to an United States Navy ESG or CSG engaging in some contingency operation or conducting some sort of intervention somewhere, most likely in or around the neighborhood.

Keep in mind that Australia has not purchased any F-35Bs, which means their flat decks are limited to rotary driven ASW duties besides delivering infantrymen and armored vehicles ashore.

As such, while the Royal Australian Navy is capable of harassing and even deterring Indonesian fishermen . . .

. . . as well as arresting illiterate Somali pirates . . .

. . . and not to necessarily make light of the RAN, but it just isn't resourced or prepared to fight the PLAN, rather it exists to supplement the USN in the Pacific and Indian Ocean for all practical purposes, especially as far as actual naval warfare goes.

 

[Maikeru]

I wonder if the PLAN jaunt around Oz has anything to do with this?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1895314441757171935

 

[Lethe]

Folks here are clearly enjoying Australia's public hysteria in relation to China's task force in the Tasman Sea and beyond, and for good reason. As several posters have alluded to, the underlying basis for that reaction is that we have little experience with other nations' armed forces operating in our near abroad and engaging in strategic signaling. We're used to doing that sort of thing to others, not having it done to us. Those so inclined could plausibly spin a broader cultural-historical narrative about the anxious arrogance of the paleface tribe that has recently disembarked on the island continent, and to some extent they would probably be right. All that is a valid subject for critique and mockery. Yet I don't see much awareness here of the internal dynamics within that Australian reaction that have served to magnify it.

The current Labor government is trying to project an image of competence: we are aware of the situation and are managing it responsibly, including with representations to the PRC regarding notification practices for live fire exercises. The ADF is mostly aligned with these objectives. As such, the great majority of official comment in this regard has been directed to "turning down the temperature" on the subject, chiefly by emphasizing that the PLAN task force is operating within international law and that it is being robustly surveilled by Australian and New Zealand assets.

Conversely, the political opposition, led by Peter Dutton as head of the Liberal Party in coalition with the National Party ("the Coalition"), is seeking to portray the Labor government as both

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in its dealings with China: why were there conflicting accounts given regarding the timing and nature of the notification of live-fire exercises? Why weren't we in a position to clearly verify those exercises ourselves? Why hasn't the Prime Minister threatened to punch Xi Jinping in the face over this outrage to Australia's national honour?, etc. Australia is in the lead-up to an election to be held a few months from now, and the Coalition is seeking to portray the incumbent Labor government as weak on matters of national security, a narrative that right-wing parties push in relation to left-wing parties the world over.

Folks may recall that it was under the previous Coalition government, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, that China-Australia relations reached new lows with Australia's call for an international inquiry (with inspector powers within China) into the origins of COVID, retaliatory economic measures implemented against various Australian exports by Beijing, and Australia's subsequent decision to acquire nuclear submarines within the AUKUS framework. The Coalition's anti-China push suffered two significant setbacks: the first, discerned only in hindsight, is that the belligerent rhetoric of the Morrison government alienated enough Australians of Chinese descent to help the Coalition lose a few seats in Parliament; the second is that the Solomon Islands signed a deal with China in the months leading up to the election that allowed Labor to flip the script and argue that the Coalition had presided over the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Conversely, the recent Labor government led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has sought to turn down the temperature on the relationship with China, avoiding the belligerent signaling of the Morrison government in favour of quieter and allegedly more productive dialogue. Beijing has subsequently dismantled the aforementioned economic restrictions that it previously imposed, while the Albanese government's approach has opened it up to the familiar criticism that it is weak on China and unwilling to respond appropriately to (what are characterised as) unprofessional and belligerent acts such as J-16s releasing flares in proximity to Australian P-8s in the SCS region, and now these live fire exercises (disruption to civil aviation) in the Tasman Sea.

So that is the political landscape, yet it is the mainstream media that plays the greatest role in shaping the public understanding and reception of events. Here we must recall that mainstream media is (a) generally ignorant of details such as what an exclusive economic zone is and what it does and doesn't mean and (b) attracted like a moth to a flame of anything that smells of controversy. We must add to this that the bulk of commercial media in Australia is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation that is one of the leading, though by no means

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, purveyors of China threat discourse.

TL;DR: The hysteria is real, but most of the hysteria is not coming from the government or ADF, but is driven by the interaction between commercial media incentives and ideological characteristics and political opportunism on the part of the Coalition in the lead-up to a federal election to be held in the next few months.

Makes you wonder if there's a Type 093 of some variety accompanying the 107 Zunyi led task force, or otherwise headed towards HMAS Stirling as the surface vessels draw the mainstay of RAN's attention.

Some defence officials have privately briefed that they think it

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that a nuclear submarine is part of the PLAN task force. Defence Minister Richard Marles said they don't know one way or the other:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"We don't know whether there is the presence of a submarine, and that, in part, speaks to the nature of submarines," he told ABC radio on Thursday.

"So, we can't answer that question definitively, which is precisely why it's important that Australia has a long-range submarine capability."

 

[coolgod]

Folks here are clearly enjoying Australia's public hysteria in relation to China's task force in the Tasman Sea and beyond, and for good reason. As several posters have alluded to, the underlying basis for that reaction is that we have little experience with other nations' armed forces operating in our near abroad and engaging in strategic signaling. We're used to doing that sort of thing to others, not having it done to us. Those so inclined could plausibly spin a broader cultural-historical narrative about the anxious arrogance of the paleface tribe that has recently disembarked on the island continent, and to some extent they would probably be right. All that is a valid subject for critique and mockery. Yet I don't see much awareness here of the internal dynamics within that Australian reaction that have served to magnify it.

The current Labor government is trying to project an image of competence: we are aware of the situation and are managing it responsibly, including with representations to the PRC regarding notification practices for live fire exercises. The ADF is mostly aligned with these objectives. As such, the great majority of official comment in this regard has been directed to "turning down the temperature" on the subject, chiefly by emphasizing that the PLAN task force is operating within international law and that it is being robustly surveilled by Australian and New Zealand assets.

Conversely, the political opposition, led by Peter Dutton as head of the Liberal Party in coalition with the National Party ("the Coalition"), is seeking to portray the Labor government as both incompetent and weak in its dealings with China: why were there conflicting accounts given regarding the timing and nature of the notification of live-fire exercises? Why weren't we in a position to clearly verify those exercises ourselves? Why hasn't the Prime Minister threatened to punch Xi Jinping in the face over this outrage to Australia's national honour?, etc. Australia is in the lead-up to an election to be held a few months from now, and the Coalition is seeking to portray the incumbent Labor government as weak on matters of national security, a narrative that right-wing parties push in relation to left-wing parties the world over.

Folks may recall that it was under the previous Coalition government, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, that China-Australia relations reached new lows with Australia's call for an international inquiry (with inspector powers within China) into the origins of COVID, retaliatory economic measures implemented against various Australian exports by Beijing, and Australia's subsequent decision to acquire nuclear submarines within the AUKUS framework. The Coalition's anti-China push suffered two significant setbacks: the first, discerned only in hindsight, is that the rhetoric alienated enough Australians of Chinese descent to help lose the Coalition a few seats in Parliament; the second is that the Solomon Islands signed a deal with China in the months leading up to the election that allowed Labor to flip the script and argue that the Coalition had presided over the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Conversely, the recent Labor government led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has sought to turn down the temperature on the relationship with China, avoiding the belligerent signaling of the Morrison government in favour of quieter and allegedly more productive dialogue. Beijing has subsequently dismantled the aforementioned economic restrictions that it previously imposed, while the Albanese government's approach has opened it up to the familiar criticism that it is weak on China and unwilling to respond appropriately to (what are characterised as) unprofessional and belligerent acts such as J-16s releasing flares in proximity to Australian P-8s in the SCS region, and now these live fire exercises (disruption to civil aviation) in the Tasman Sea.

So that is the political landscape, yet it is the mainstream media that plays the greatest role in shaping the public understanding and reception of events. Here we must recall that mainstream media is (a) generally ignorant of details such as what an exclusive economic zone is and what it does and doesn't mean and (b) attracted like a moth to a flame of anything that smells of controversy. We must add to this that the bulk of commercial media in Australia is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation that is one of the leading, though by no means

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, purveyors of China threat discourse.

TL;DR: The hysteria is real, but most of the hysteria is not coming from the government or ADF, but is driven by the interaction between commercial media incentives and ideological characteristics and political opportunism on the part of the Coalition in the lead-up to a federal election to be held in the next few months.



Some defence officials have privately briefed that they think it

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that a nuclear submarine is part of the PLAN task force. Defence Minister Richard Marles said they don't know one way or the other:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A lot of what you said can be applied to most western countries e.g., Canada, US. China bashing is the norm, but elites usually keep the government and media in check, to make sure they don't go overboard.

I think China doesn't really get involved with domestic politics of other countries, so China will sail around Australia whenever she feels necessary regardless of Australia's election timing.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I wonder if the PLAN jaunt around Oz has anything to do with this?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1895314441757171935

I don't think so.

Though, that'd be a great opportunity for the PLAN task force to hone their ASW skills, considering that the RAN is slated to operate 3x Virginia SSNs in the future per the AUKUS plan, if everything is according to plan of course.

 

[Blitzo]

Some defence officials have privately briefed that they think it

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that a nuclear submarine is part of the PLAN task force. Defence Minister Richard Marles said they don't know one way or the other:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

To be fair, I think even if the ADF did know that a PLAN SSN was accompanying those three ships, they would be wise to say they don't know one way or another.