Australia To Become Forward Deployed Submarine Base of US & Allies Against China

[Tangmo]

Australian leaders never say so, but they must be worried about Indonesia. It's the fourth most populous country on Earth (five times the population of Australia). Needing 5% GDP growth and with huge poverty problems, Indonesia can't afford a world class military ... but if China starts donating or selling below cost, Indonesia could be a serious threat.

Indonesia's largest trading partner is Japan and both Japan and Australia are formal mutual defense treaty allies with the United States. China is not popular in Indonesia to include a large trade deficit.


Then there's the South China Sea and the Indonesian Natuna islands and waters where "foreign vessels" are kept away by the Indonesian Navy much to the frustration of the CCP Boyz in Beijing...


Indonesia Navy increase patrols after foreign vessels detected near Natuna

KRI Tjiptadi-381 (right) and KRI Teuku Umar-385 (left) took a sailing pass in the Natuna Sea, Riau Islands, Wednesday (1/15/2020). (Antara/M Risyal Hidayat)

Several years ago the defense ministry in Jakarta sent a 40 ship naval fleet to its Natuna islands in the South China Sea that have waters near the Spratly islands of the Philippines that had been seized by Beijing. The defense minister said, "If you lock the front door but don't lock the back door the thief will come in."

There's a retired 2-star general in the parliament in Jakarta who leads a group of colleagues who want to join AUKUS to add an I as in AUKUSI. That won't be happening given Jakarta's consistent non alignment but that's the sentiment. And believe me, the Indonesian military has much better relations with the US military than they have with the Australian military.

The constant challenge is that the three main players suck at diplomacy, China, Indonesia, Australia. Chances Beijing would ever swing Indonesia to its side are slim and none and slim left for the station already. Slim is gone.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Why should Australia only buy US equipment?

Loyalty.

Europe makes excellent equipment and we are more willing to give operational sovereignty.
The UK makes some of the best military stuff in the world so why shouldn't Australia buy it?
Australia has more historical ties with the UK than the US so that makes sense as well.

Historical ties stopped meaning anything when Singapore fell. Australia should be loyal only to the US now, because only the US can be relied on to risk lives and treasure in the Asia/Pacific theatre.

Don't pretend that the UK is a world peacekeeper. The UK is just a bigger version of Australia, "paying the premiums" on its US insurance.

Anyway, you're talking about the next stage (SSN-AUKUS) which doesn't even start for a decade. For now, Australia is buying US boats, not French or British.

 

[Serenity]

Has the government got the nuclear submarine deal right?

The huge cost of nuclear submarines means the capabilities of our air force or army may be affected in the coming decades. In addition, how new detection technology will impact the effectiveness of these expensive subs in the years ahead is yet to be explained by the government, writes Mick Ryan.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Peter]

Loyalty.



Historical ties stopped meaning anything when Singapore fell. Australia should be loyal only to the US now, because only the US can be relied on to risk lives and treasure in the Asia/Pacific theatre.

Don't pretend that the UK is a world peacekeeper. The UK is just a bigger version of Australia, "paying the premiums" on its US insurance.

Anyway, you're talking about the next stage (SSN-AUKUS) which doesn't even start for a decade. For now, Australia is buying US boats, not French or British.

The UK has been active in the region far longer than the US and continues to be so now.
Why do you think Japan has chosen to partner with the UK for its next generation fighter project rather than the US who has supplied much of its equipment up to now?

 

[The Stars Tremble]

The UK has been active in the region far longer than the US and continues to be so now.

When's the last war that the UK won in that region, then?

Why do you think Japan has chosen to partner with the UK for its next generation fighter project rather than the US who has supplied much of its equipment up to now?

Knowing Japan, I wouldn't be surprised if bribes were involved.

 

[Peter]

When's the last war that the UK won in that region, then?



Knowing Japan, I wouldn't be surprised if bribes were involved.

When was the last time the US won a war there?

The reason Japan chose to go with the UK and Italy for the next-generation jet is that they can have full operational sovereignty and a manufacturing/development base on equal footing. They had a few options including going with the US or Germany and France who all have next gen jets in development but chose the UK/Italian offer.

Japan is also developing a new version of the Meteor BVR missile with the UK which will be integrated.

The UK invented the radar so we're actually pretty good at making them and are working on new kit for the new jet.

 

[Serenity]

It probobly doesn't help that the UK used Australia as a nuclear weapons testing area.

Over 70 years ago. All with the agreement of my own Government.

Terrible.

 

[Serenity]

Loyalty.



Historical ties stopped meaning anything when Singapore fell. Australia should be loyal only to the US now, because only the US can be relied on to risk lives and treasure in the Asia/Pacific theatre.

Don't pretend that the UK is a world peacekeeper. The UK is just a bigger version of Australia, "paying the premiums" on its US insurance.

Anyway, you're talking about the next stage (SSN-AUKUS) which doesn't even start for a decade. For now, Australia is buying US boats, not French or British.

Australia has already proven her loyalty and is arguably the most loyal ally the US has.

Australia should remain loyal to all of her allies.

 

[oneworld2]

Clearly this is a "provocation" by China.

Of course it is.

The USA and it's lackies rule the world and are shitting themselves over the rise of China/BRICS/Russia etc etc.

The vomiting up of the apologetics will accompany every and all acts that the global hegemon and co gang members will be widely accessible here and in western national discourse everywhere going forward.

 

[ouch]

Australia has already proven her loyalty and is arguably the most loyal ally the US has.

Australia should remain loyal to all of her allies.

According to some Aussie experts, Australia will be at war with China in 3 years and according to an USAF General, the US very will may be at war with China in 2 years post Tiawan's 2024 election that's expected to further defy Xi of China. It's also being reported that this new class of subs won't come soon enough. With so much dire handwriting on the wall, the West will need all allies shoulder to shoulder.

US General’s leaked memo predicts war with China in two years

War between the US and China could break out in 2025, according to a General's leaked memo.…

www.ohmymag.co.uk

A memo has been leaked by US Air Force General Michael A. Minihan with a stark warning to the officers under his command about the possibility of war between the United States and China in 2025.

US and China 'will fight in 2025'​

Minihan is the head of Air Mobility Command (AMC), overseeing the service’s fleet of transport and refuelling aircraft. In the memo obtained by NBC News with the subject line 'February 2023 Orders in Preparation for — The Next Fight',he predicts war with China in two years. He wrote:

 

[Peter]

China will not attack Australia as they have zero hope of holding an entire continent that size that can be easily resuplied by allies at any time.

Lets say China invades one side of Australia, by the time they manage to trudge all the way to the other side, Europe and the US will have built up a mass of troops and equipment on the other side to beat them back with and liberate the country because Australia is bloody massive.

It's a pointless and doomed invasion that would just result in lots and lots of dead Chinese and Australians and them becoming a pariah state on the world stage as Australia has never had any intention of attacking China so they can't even claim some spurious self defence angle to justify an invasion.

 

[ouch]

China will not attack Australia as they have zero hope of holding an entire continent that size that can be easily resuplied by allies at any time.

Lets say China invades one side of Australia, by the time they manage to trudge all the way to the other side, Europe and the US will have built up a mass of troops and equipment on the other side to beat them back with and liberate the country because Australia is bloody massive.

It's a pointless and doomed invasion that would just result in lots and lots of dead Chinese and Australians and them becoming a pariah state on the world stage as Australia has never had any intention of attacking China so they can't even claim some spurious self defence angle to justify an invasion.

It wouldn't be in China's best military interest to initiate an opening attack anywhere in Australia let alone take the entire continent of Australia. If an opening attack occurred by China on Australia's Navy, it probably would be in the waters of the Pacific starting with targets in the S China Sea and eventually targets near the Philippines. Even that opening prospect would instantly draw US + allies return fire in that sector. In agreement that China wouldn't do well to even 'go there' in the first place.

 

[Tangmo]

The British Admiralty says both new aircraft carriers are committed to the Western Pacific-East and South Asia and the South China Sea.






Each of the two new UK aircraft carriers are also designated as a "Coalition Warship" with US Marines and Royal Navy fighter pilots commanded by a Royal Navy captain of the ship and a Royal Navy Commodore commanding the coalition strike force of the carrier to include escort destroyers, subs and a frigate from the Netherlands.

US Marine Corps F-35 Fighters Deploy Aboard British Aircraft Carrier​

An F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter flown by the commanding officer of the US Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 211, after becoming the first USMC F-35 to land onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth on September 22, 2020, off the coast of the United Kingdom. (Royal Navy Photograph by LPhot Mark Johnson)

Ten US Marine Corps F-35B Joint Strike Fighters embarked the carrier Queen Elizabeth from Portsmouth, England, as part of a multi-month training deployment, according to a US Marine Corps news release. It was for the Queen Elizabeth's inaugural full-length deployment to the Med and the South China Sea. The Marine Corps F-35s out of Yuma, Arizona, will be joined in training by British F-35Bs from the U.K.'s 617 Squadron, "The Dambusters." The B-variant of the F-35 comes equipped with lift fans that allow for short takeoff and vertical landing -- a crucial feature when operating from short flight decks at sea.


I would add that Japan is the largest purchaser of the F-35 A & B with 141 of 'em. Japan had money on the table for 171 of the suckers but Congress had authorized only up to 141 for Japan, at least for a while. UK has money on the table for 138 of 'em. With a bakers dozen of countries authorized to buy the F-35s it can't be produced fast enough. So UK & Japan being equal US allies in the Europe-Atlantic-Med and Japan in East Asia-Western Pacific-South China Sea, have first priority on 'em. Japan has converted two flattop helicopter carriers of ASW into aircraft carriers with the F-35B.

Countries currently getting or soon to get the F-35 besides the US equal allies UK & Japan are Australia, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Poland, Israel, South Korea, Singapore.

 

[mrjurrs]

The costs to invade Australia were never worth it, for a country with no oil or rubber. Unlike the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) Australia was an independent country and would not readily exchange one foreign ruler for another.

Australian leaders never say so, but they must be worried about Indonesia. It's the fourth most populous country on Earth (five times the population of Australia). Needing 5% GDP growth and with huge poverty problems, Indonesia can't afford a world class military ... but if China starts donating or selling below cost, Indonesia could be a serious threat.

Australia doesn't just need submarines, OTH radar, missiles and all the good stuff. It needs to be a good customer to the US, to remind the US that Australia has contributed to every war where the Americans asked. Former Prime Minister John Howard called this "paying the premiums" on Australia's defense "insurance."

Frankly Australia shouldn't be buying arms from ANYONE but the US. Because of where it is, the only modern military power that Australia can turn to is the US. If Japan would get off the bench, they'd be a valuable ally too.

Hopefully it is all economic activity and nothing else comes from it.

 

[Tangmo]

As expected the CCP Boyz in Beijing are hollering and flapping their arms again.

This is after the the Boyz contrition of restaffing their foreign ministry late last year. Xi Jinping has let up on his notorious "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy" as the non diplomacy is called around the world. Tuff talk, strict demands against nations, submission to Beijing's nefarious priorities and so on have failed. Predictably, Xi's belligerence and bellicosity over several years has alienated the world from the DictatorTyrants in Beijing.

"Wolf Warrior" Diplomacy comes from the Chinese film "Wolf Warrior" that broke all box office records in China about a former PLA special forces commando who kicks the arses of countries Beijing doesn't like, which is a lot of 'em. It has the US fleeing from its position abroad in the face of the onslaught of Chinese superiority. The Wolf Warrior "even kills his American boss and sneers: "People like you will always be inferior to people like me." A description of the smash popular movie across China is linked below.


Meanwhile, back to reality...

Penny Wong hits back at China’s claim Aukus nuclear submarines will fuel an arms race​

Foreign minister set to visit south-east Asia and the Pacific to reassure countries Australia does not seek to escalate military tensions


The Australian foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, has hit back at China’s response to Aukus, insisting that its criticisms of the nuclear-powered submarine deal are “not grounded in fact”. Wong also signalled that she planned to make further visits to south-east Asia and the Pacific to reassure the region that Australia does not seek to escalate military tensions. After the announcement of a multi-decade plan that could cost as much as $368bn between now and the mid-2050s, Wong said no rational observer could conclude Australia was the source of a regional arms race.




She urged China to take up a US offer to agree on “guardrails” to avoid an outbreak of war, despite the concept being derided by Beijing last week. Australia has previously accused China of lacking transparency about its own rapid military buildup. “Nobody wants to see escalation. Nobody wants to see a miscalculation,” Wong said on Tuesday. “I think the region is entitled to seek that the great powers manage competition respectfully and appropriately.” Hours after the Aukus plans were announced by the US, the UK and Australia on Tuesday, China’s foreign ministry repeated its longstanding position that the deal reflected “a typical Cold War mentality” that would stimulate an arms race and “sabotage” the international nuclear non-proliferation system. Wong said Australia had been “very clear” that it would not acquire nuclear weapons. She also said “a number of other countries have” nuclear-powered submarines – and they were allowed under the NPT.

Penny Wong hits back at China’s claim Aukus nuclear submarines will fuel an arms race

Foreign minister set to visit south-east Asia and the Pacific to reassure countries Australia does not seek to escalate military tensions

www.theguardian.com

From the Manila Times in the Philippines:

Hard lesson learned: China pivoting away from wolf-warrior diplomacy?​

Fighting as a lone wolf is dangerous in an action film. It is even riskier as a foreign policy.
– The Economist

With a new pugnacious style of diplomacy, which sharply deviated from the "low profile" policy approach exemplified by Deng Xiaoping which the Chinese patriotically revere.

Hard lesson learned: China pivoting away from wolf-warrior diplomacy?

Fighting as a lone wolf is dangerous in an action film. It is even riskier as a foreign policy.

www.manilatimes.net

 

[Tangmo]

The UK has been active in the region far longer than the US and continues to be so now.
Why do you think Japan has chosen to partner with the UK for its next generation fighter project rather than the US who has supplied much of its equipment up to now?

It's also the case Japan has become the major ally of the US globally.

Japan has the best Navy and the best Air Force in Asia, according to the USN War College and the USAF Air College. Its Army for home defense is well prepared and Japan will deploy units abroad -- to Australia with US and AUS forces in Darwin -- for the first time in 80 years.

Both UK and Japan are island sea faring nations off the coast of major continents -- Europe for the UK and East Asia for Japan. Each nation's Navy has a long and formidable history. Each UK & Japan are positioned at a major ocean, the Atlantic and the Pacific. Each has a subsea as it were, the Med and the South China Sea. Japan is west of the IDL and UK is east of the IDL. This is all good news for the good guys.

All three plus Canada have Arctic passage interests that counter the nefarious designs of Russia in the Arctic, to include drilling and environment. There are the straits and canals that are the 7 strategic chokepoints globally, Gibraltar, Bosporus, Suez, Malacca, Taiwan, Bering, Panama. Then there are exercises such as the US & Australia in Nevada last year rehearsing long distance midair refueling.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The US and NATO has also taken notice with Russian subs getting busier.

Russia's submarine strategy—how Putin plans to rule beneath the waves

As NATO members sound the alarm, an expert tells Newsweek Russia's current submarine activity is as dangerous as Cold War levels in terms of sheer volume.

www.newsweek.com

Over the past several years, Moscow has been producing a series of submarines that have the capability to reach the most critical targets in the U.S. or continental Europe, and now NATO members are increasingly sounding the alarm over the activities of Vladimir Putin's submarine fleet.

Russia nuclear submarines deployed off U.S. coast spark alarm

Moscow has been producing a series of submarines that have the capability to reach the most critical targets in the United States or continental Europe.

www.newsweek.com

As Russian President Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine continues to rage, United States commanders and military observers are sounding the alarm about the activity of Russia's submarine fleet thousands of miles away, off the U.S. coast.

I almost fell off my chair when I first read about this a week ago.

I had heard Australia and US were buddying up, but a sub base in Australia to build and service US and NATO subs....!

All of a sudden I'm not so concerned about China anymore and understand why this 'new face' for Guy Lo (white ghost) of Bejing. Offering to negotiate peace? Ahhh...not in keeping with the general character.

It also means the Aussies are going top have to be let in to NATO technology. All of a sudden, I understand why now, for Putin when he invaded Ukraine. If things had gone his way he'd have his unified Russia. Now? Not so much.

 

[Bodi]

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have arrived at the San Diego Naval Base to meet tomorrow with Potus Biden and announce a $100bn program to build, host, deploy and repair nuclear powered submarines in Australia. This builds on the $40bn purchase by Australia of 10 USN Virginia class nuclear powered submarines to be announced tomorrow, 5 now and 5 later. Australia will be provided the industrial base to itself build US submarines that are sorely needed due to labor shortages in the US.

Plenty of money for nuclear subs but no money for poor schools...

 

[Peter]

Plenty of money for nuclear subs but no money for poor schools...

Maybe they could host schools in the subs while in dock?

 

[Bodi]

Maybe they could host schools in the subs while in dock?

... and they could run soup kitchens for the homeless and give them bunks for the night.

 

[Peter]

... and they could run soup kitchens for the homeless and give them bunks for the night.

This problem solving stuff is a piece of piss.
Why do those old geezers at the UN always make it look so hard?

 

[Tangmo]

Australia has already proven her loyalty and is arguably the most loyal ally the US has.

Australia should remain loyal to all of her allies.

Indeed and Australian forces fought with American forces in WW2, Korea, Vietnam and in the Iraq War your Maj.Gen. Jim Moran was chief of operations at the Multinational Force Headquarters. Chief of Ops at any level is a vital position because it's everything.

During the Vietnam War when the Labour PM Whitlam started buddying up with Ho Chi Minh the governor general fired Whitlam after the parliament turned against him and called a new election won by the opposition.

My experience with Australians is that they're pretty clear about things. Much better on your side than not.

 

[ralfy]

CN has to deal with US encirclement:



based on the belief that even far-away countries are considered a threat to the US one way or another.

Meanwhile, all of them have to consider the weirdness of the situation, e.g.,

CN is a major trading partner of generally all countries in the region plus the US. Based on various surveys, most citizens in various countries in the region favor the US but has CN and even JP as major trading parnters and donors. AU, in particular, sees CN as a valuable trading partner.

Besides CN, several don't like JP, especially CN and SK. Meanwhile, JP is very friendly to PH, which was bullied for decades by the US, but where US approval rating is among the highest: the US itself and its Presidents have higher approval ratings in PH than in the US.

PH is probably the most bullied country in the region. CN, VN, MY, TW, and even BN claim part or most of the WPS. Many of them focus on CN, but the country with the most installations in the WPS is VN.

VN has the US and CN as major trading partners. The US bullied VN (keep in mind that "bullied" may be considered a metaphor for worst, e.g., around two million of their people died during US police action, and the first instance of the same in the region took place in PH, where the US turned parts of it as a "howling wilderness") but the US wants to sell arms to VN. VN and CN have had years of oil exploration projects, but CN continues to bully VN. Meanwhile, the main military ally of VN is RU.

AU and even NZ have been having difficulties dealing with various military agreements, e.g. ANZUS; similar applies to other countries in the region, e.g., SEATO.

The CN claim to most of the WPS comes from TW, which in turn has both the US and CN as trading partners but is not recognized by most countries as a country. TW, one US ally, is bullying the PH, another US ally.

Most countries in the region have traditions that go against Western democracy, i.e., a preference for authoritarianism, tradition, and cooperation or team work.

Finally, AFAIK most citizens of the US don't want to fight, don't want to serve, don't want conscription, and want to keep military aid low because they're suffering economically and want the aid to go to them. That means the US needs other countries to provide the warm bodies. A few of them, like PH, are so poor thanks to US-style neoliberalism they'll take various low-paying and even dangerous jobs.

 

[Tigerace117]

Why should Australia only buy US equipment?
Europe makes excellent equipment and we are more willing to give operational sovereignty.
The UK makes some of the best military stuff in the world so why shouldn't Australia buy it?
Australia has more historical ties with the UK than the US so that makes sense as well.

Because that makes it easier for the US to force Australia to do what it wants. Duh.

 

[Tangmo]

Has the government got the nuclear submarine deal right?

The huge cost of nuclear submarines means the capabilities of our air force or army may be affected in the coming decades. In addition, how new detection technology will impact the effectiveness of these expensive subs in the years ahead is yet to be explained by the government, writes Mick Ryan.

www.abc.net.au

I quote from this article and link to it because your guy in your link talks throughout about money, money, money and somewhat speculates about unidentified future technologies.

The following is from the Australian Financial Review. The writer says the whole package will add 0.15% annually to the Aussie defense budget. That is, the Army and the Air Force are not getting screwed. The AF is getting F-35s as authorized for Australia by Congress.

How Australia will pay for AUKUS submarines​

Numbers released on Tuesday to coincide with the official announcement, show AUKUS will cost the budget $9 billion over the next four years and up to $58 billion over the next decade, with the creation of 20,000 jobs, mainly in South Australia and Western Australia.

However, the initial $9 billion cost over the forward estimates will be fully offset by savings elsewhere in defence. This includes $6 billion that would have been spent on the now abandoned French Attack Class submarines. About $2.5 billion will be given to the US to enable it to step up the production of the Virginia Class subs. This will include $2 billion to upgrade the Osborne Submarine Construction Yard. The Sterling Naval Base in WA will be upgraded at a cost of $1 billion. About $8 billion will be invested in WA over the next decade while the East Coast base was previously estimated to cost $10 billion. The government will also soon pick a site for a submarine base on the East Coast, either in Newcastle, Brisbane, or Port Kembla. The upgrades will create an estimated 4000 jobs and the construction of the subs another 4000-to-5500 direct jobs.

Similarly, the $50-58 billion medium term cost will be reduced by $24 billion that will not be spent on the French subs. This takes the total cost over the first 10 years to $26 billion to $34 billion.

How Australia will pay for AUKUS submarines

Australia will boost its annual defence spending by an average of 0.15 per cent of GDP annually for 30 years to cover the cost of nuclear-powered submarines.

www.afr.com

Each of the three countries get jobs, jobs, jobs and a greatly expanded industrial base. The jobs are preponderantly in high tech and super high tech. Countries that require sailors to learn and use nuclear technology for propulsion and power have higher enlistment rates per capita than those that do not.