Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Royal Australian Navy's future strategy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Hi Anzac,

    True to a large degree though not entirely. For example the Australian Strategy Policy Institute recently released a paper suggesting the forward basing of two RN T31 Frigates @FBW by the late 20s to alleviate the chronic frigate problem in the RAN.

    The links between the RN and RAN run deep and are mutually beneficial to both services and nations.
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by spider View Post
      Hi Anzac,

      True to a large degree though not entirely. For example the Australian Strategy Policy Institute recently released a paper suggesting the forward basing of two RN T31 Frigates @FBW by the late 20s to alleviate the chronic frigate problem in the RAN.

      The links between the RN and RAN run deep and are mutually beneficial to both services and nations.
      The long standing links are there and also the RCN and RNZN are part of that AUSCANNZUK group of "Royal Navies" but doctrinal leadership, strategic weight, institutional guidance and influence within the group in the 21st century is the USN. Of the three former Dominion navies it is really only the RNZN that the Royal Navy has deeper cultural ties mainly due to the fact that their is still a sizable cohort of serving officers and NCO's who continue to transfer from the RN to the RNZN because we need them. In fact it was only until the Vietnam era that the RNZN was able to appoint a non RN flag officer as its Chief of Navy where as the RAN were by the end of WW2 had a born and breed Aussie in the top billet.

      There is a lot of back history to the RAN and the Australian government with their ties to London that influenced the last part of the 20th century. In WW2 after the Japanese kicked off the Aussies substantially withdrew their forces from Europe to the SW Pacific, which angered Churchill and the British. Since then the RAN came under the orbit of the USN and the ANZUS Treaty. By the early 1970's the British were to all extent and purposes gone from the Indo-Pacific region.

      What people also forget is that the Poms were told to Foxtrot Oscar from anything but a token involvement in the Pacific theatre during WW2 and of course MacArthur was based initially out of Queensland and had his Supreme Allied HQ there. In New Zealand we may of had a RN Commodore as our Chief of Navy but by 1942 a USN Vice Admiral as Commander, South Pacific based in Auckland was installed by the Combined Joint Chiefs.

      Comment


      • #78
        Australia and the United Kingdom signed a bilateral defenxe agreement in 2013. I may be wrong, but Australia stands to benefit more from that arrangement than the UK. A good example of that being the sharing of naval technology. Indeed RAN submariners were in the UK undergoing engineering familiarisation as recently as a few months ago under the AUKUS submarine programme.

        And I’m glad to see that; I’ve worked with the Australians on ops and regard them well.

        If the ‘Poms’ had no more than a than a token involvement in the Pacific Campaign then that would be because they were focussed in the Indian Ocean.
        'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by spider View Post
          Australia and the United Kingdom signed a bilateral defenxe agreement in 2013. I may be wrong, but Australia stands to benefit more from that arrangement than the UK. A good example of that being the sharing of naval technology. Indeed RAN submariners were in the UK undergoing engineering familiarisation as recently as a few months ago under the AUKUS submarine programme.

          And I’m glad to see that; I’ve worked with the Australians on ops and regard them well.
          And through all of this the Aussies do not see themselves these days as any way shape in form as junior partners in that relationship.


          Originally posted by spider View Post
          If the ‘Poms’ had no more than a than a token involvement in the Pacific Campaign then that would be because they were focussed in the Indian Ocean.
          Yep mopping up in the Indian Ocean was about all the US wanted Mountbatten as CINC SEA command to do. Adm's King the CNO, Gen MacArthur, Gen Stilwell, Nimitz the CincPac and Halsey 3rd Fleet did not want them in the Pacific.

          Nimitz because of the logistic burden and because Admiral King the CNO in particular loathed the British with a passion even more the Bull Halsey whom had Bruce Frasers BPF placed under him in his 3rd Fleet and made sure they were bit players in the final sea battles against the Japanese.

          The US thematically as part of its political policy and the ambition to put in place the Bretton Woods system and the UN at the centre of the post WW2 world did not want the British to reinvent their colonialist empire in the whole Pacific - SEA command, which was Churchill's political ambition - to rebuild empire. FDR agreed to a minor BPF role reluctantly basically out of friendship, and made sure planners had RNZN, RAN and RCN combatants were assigned though the old Pacific guard within the USN were never happy even at that.
          Last edited by Anzac; 3 March 2024, 00:05.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Anzac View Post
            And through all of this the Aussies do not see themselves these days as any way shape in form as junior partners in that relationship.


            Yep mopping up in the Indian Ocean was about all the US wanted Mountbatten as CINC SEA command to do. Adm's King the CNO, Gen MacArthur, Gen Stilwell, Nimitz the CincPac and Halsey 3rd Fleet did not want them in the Pacific.

            Nimitz because of the logistic burden and because Admiral King the CNO in particular loathed the British with a passion even more the Bull Halsey whom had Bruce Frasers BPF placed under him in his 3rd Fleet and made sure they were bit players in the final sea battles against the Japanese.

            The US thematically as part of its political policy and the ambition to put in place the Bretton Woods system and the UN at the centre of the post WW2 world did not want the British to reinvent their colonialist empire in the whole Pacific - SEA command, which was Churchill's political ambition - to rebuild empire. FDR agreed to a minor BPF role reluctantly basically out of friendship, and made sure planners had RNZN, RAN and RCN combatants were assigned though the old Pacific guard within the USN were never happy even at that.
            Apologies for the delay in replying, I have intermittent access to IT at present.

            However they see themselves, the Aussies are junior partners in that relationship, and will be until the 2040s. My original point stands; it'll be good to see them rely less on the US and UK for regional security and the sooner the better. Everyones eyes are on Russia and Ukraine - China poses a very serious threat to that whole region, as I'm sure you understand better than I.

            Ref. the Pacific; well of course the US didn't want the UK involved there. They saw the Pacific as 'their' battle, and indeed they exploited British overstretch to their advantage in order to elevate the US influence on the world stage. Current politics in Washington may see that already waning influence decline further, which again is why countries like the UK and Australia need to invest more in their Armed Forces.

            The war in Burma was hardly a mopping up exercise; British and British Indian Army troops stopped four Japanese Infantry Divisions at Kohima and Imphal.
            'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by spider View Post
              However they see themselves, the Aussies are junior partners in that relationship, and will be until the 2040s. My original point stands; it'll be good to see them rely less on the US and UK for regional security and the sooner the better.
              Current British assets in the Pacific region are a Gurkha garrison in Brunei and two offshore patrol vessels. The French have a much larger presence. Thank god for the Aussies for making up the increasing decline of the British.

              “We have no greater friend, no greater partner, no greater ally than Australia,” recently declared Antony Blinken. It is not just the Aussies who see it, but also New Zealand who knows a junior partner when it sees one.

              Originally posted by spider View Post
              The war in Burma was hardly a mopping up exercise; British and British Indian Army troops stopped four Japanese Infantry Divisions at Kohima and Imphal.
              That is Burma. Not the British Pacific Fleet.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Anzac View Post

                Current British assets in the Pacific region are a Gurkha garrison in Brunei and two offshore patrol vessels. The French have a much larger presence. Thank god for the Aussies for making up the increasing decline of the British.

                “We have no greater friend, no greater partner, no greater ally than Australia,” recently declared Antony Blinken. It is not just the Aussies who see it, but also New Zealand who knows a junior partner when it sees one.

                That is Burma. Not the British Pacific Fleet.
                Well I would hope that the Australians would take responsibility for security in the region; that should after all be their main effort. Regional security in the Pacific isn't the UKs main effort, but the Australians aren't up to it themselves at present and continue to look to the US and UK for support. That may be in the form of forward based military assets (in the RNs case an SSN from 2026 and possibly two frigates), but it is also in military technology, intelligence gathering / sharing and diplomacy.

                As for Blinken's comment, that's all semantics. Biden himself said this in a speech last summer about US / UK relations;

                'That’s the unshakable foundation of this special relationship. And it is a special relationship. There’s no country closer to us than Great Britain.

                Today, as NATO Allies, partners in innovation, as friends in a shared vision of the future, and the two nations — our two nations are ready to meet the challenges of our time and meet them together.

                And I’m confident the United Kingdom and the United States will continue to lead the world toward greater peace, prosperity, and security for all.'

                Unfortunately, however you wish to spin it, Australia are junior partners in all of this. A senior former defence advisor in Australia (Professor Hugh White) has recently publicly expressed doubts about whether Australia will press ahead with the AUKUS submarine programme, citing amongst other things Australia's reliance on the US and UK Governments for any future decisions around these vessels.

                As for Burma / the Pacific, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the Indian Ocean as a region, as the Pacific is a region, but I can see now that you were referring to the newly formed (November 1944) RN Pacific Fleet. The 'mopping up' in the Indian Ocean you mentioned was their first action as a fleet; successful RN Fleet Air Arm attacks on Japanese Oil refineries on Sumatra. These were supplying 3/4 of the Japanese military's aviation fuel, and had previously been unsuccessfully attacked by US B-29s. They were militarily hugely significant targets. The RN FAA attacks halted production completely for two months, and after repairs it only ever reached 1/3 of the previous production capacity. ​
                'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

                Comment


                • #83
                  In terms of Intelligence capability yes the UK are formidible and much larger than Australia which is still a junior partner in the FVEY's. However in Defence capability, Australia has rapidly strengthened and will continue to do so where as the UK because of its decline both pre and post brexit will continue to fade. Other than the legacy boomers and two carriers UK Forces are in no position at present to give themselves tier 1 status above the ADF. In fact the boomers and carriers have drained them of actual capability thus creating what is a far less coherent force structure. No LHD's, lacking in airborne enablers including capabilities like Growler and E-55, fewer E-7's and P-8A's, no Triton ect.

                  If there are any doubts about AUKUS it is whether or not Australia will eventually proceed with working with the UK post 2035 in a future boat once the Virginia's start to arrive downunder and the potential for Electric Boat to not just drop in a US built propulsion unit but also build the boat at the Stirling WA yard. The issues with the UK boats are well documented.

                  The view is that in some ways the UK needs the Aussies on board because UK Defence has been so run down over the last 20 years that they have lost the critical mass to be able to pull it off again by themselves. A recent Lowry report paper recommended that the UK should abandon its plan to build Astute II and work with the RAN and USN on a common evolved Virginia class instead built across the three countries.

                  Thanks for referencing Operation Meridian where the Australian government supplied the fleet logistics and the US supplied Avengers cause the Fleet Arm Fairey's could not cope with the hot humidity of South East Asia and the South Western Pacific.

                  BTW Hugh White has changed his position on nuke submarines a number of times. It all depends on what political party is in charge.





                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Anzac View Post
                    In terms of Intelligence capability yes the UK are formidible and much larger than Australia which is still a junior partner in the FVEY's. However in Defence capability, Australia has rapidly strengthened and will continue to do so where as the UK because of its decline both pre and post brexit will continue to fade. Other than the legacy boomers and two carriers UK Forces are in no position at present to give themselves tier 1 status above the ADF. In fact the boomers and carriers have drained them of actual capability thus creating what is a far less coherent force structure. No LHD's, lacking in airborne enablers including capabilities like Growler and E-55, fewer E-7's and P-8A's, no Triton ect.

                    If there are any doubts about AUKUS it is whether or not Australia will eventually proceed with working with the UK post 2035 in a future boat once the Virginia's start to arrive downunder and the potential for Electric Boat to not just drop in a US built propulsion unit but also build the boat at the Stirling WA yard. The issues with the UK boats are well documented.

                    The view is that in some ways the UK needs the Aussies on board because UK Defence has been so run down over the last 20 years that they have lost the critical mass to be able to pull it off again by themselves. A recent Lowry report paper recommended that the UK should abandon its plan to build Astute II and work with the RAN and USN on a common evolved Virginia class instead built across the three countries.

                    Thanks for referencing Operation Meridian where the Australian government supplied the fleet logistics and the US supplied Avengers cause the Fleet Arm Fairey's could not cope with the hot humidity of South East Asia and the South Western Pacific.

                    BTW Hugh White has changed his position on nuke submarines a number of times. It all depends on what political party is in charge.




                    Evening Anzac,

                    Or whatever time of the day it is on the other side of the world!

                    The 'legacy boomers' are anything but that; they are the cornerstone of UK Defence Strategy and a new class of SSBNs is in build as we speak (Dreadnought Class). The UK nuclear deterrent is not only an insurance policy for this country, it is for the entire North Atlantic region. That this is the case was highlighted again recently when the German Defence Minister publicly suggested that the UK and France should collaborate to form a 'nuclear umbrella' to protect continental Europe. People are jittery about Trump being re-elected...

                    Only eight navies in the world operate conventional aircraft carriers, they are an invaluable asset and in some circumstances a strategic gamechanger. That the RN have invested in and are almost there in terms of full carrier operating capability gives NATO and the UKs other allies more options to deter our enemies. That has to be a good thing, so I'm really puzzled when I read comments dissing that. I for one would like to see Australia get back into the carrier business, it would make the world a safer place, but it seems that their Defence Strategic Review of 2023 didn't go for that. As an aside I recently binge watched 'Patrol Boat' an Aussie late 70s fictional TV series about the RAN Coastal Patrol boats. One of the episodes features HMAS Melbourne operating Skyhawks. Quite a good series, the casual racism and misogyny aside, but it was a show of its time I guess.

                    I really don't want to get into 'Top Trumps' with you about UK vs Australia defence capabilities. However, even a cursory glance at how mainstream defence commentators rank the worlds militaries will show that the UK is far more militarily capable than Australia; and anyway both militaries have different missions and focusses so comparing them isn't as straightforward as they have more or less of X,Y & Z. However, Australia is the sixth largest country in the world by land mass, and has the worlds third largest EEZ. They should have the equipment to defend their sovereignty and to support their allies. Yet Australia are having to ditch other defence programmes to fund AUKUS (new Army armour order slashed by 75%) so lets not kid ourselves that all is rosy in the world of Australian defence procurement. It really isn't.

                    With regards to AUKUS, its not the case that the UK have lost the critical mass to be able to build submarines. If you have a credible source which can cite reliable evidence to support that view, then please put up a link, I'd be genuinely interested in having a look at that. What does seem to be the case, from what I've read, is that by collaborating on the design and build of a new class of SBNs, the UK and Australia could build boats more cheaply and faster than the US. Also, the political scene in the US at present suggests that the UK may be a more secure partner for Australia in all of this than the US, with Trump's (or one of his proxies) 'America First' policies. You mention well-documented problems with RN submarines; the only issue I am aware of with the Astute Class currently is the problems getting them dry-docked, a legacy of post Cold-War defence cuts which are now biting the MOD in the arse. Work is underway to rapidly resolve this, as far as I can understand. Whilst the lead boat had (now resolved) teething problems, the vessels themselves are cutting edge, equal in capability to the Virginia Class. And in any case, even if they were junk, the AUKUS boats will be a new design.

                    Op MERIDIAN was not logistically supported by the Australian Government. The British Pacific Fleet, formed at Trincomalee in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) was due to sail to Sydney from where it would be based and operate in the Pacific. Admiral Nimitz USN, for whom the RN would be working in the Pacific, asked Admiral Fraser RN to look at attacking the oil refineries whilst enroute from Trincomalee to Sydney, as he felt that carrier based aircraft were a better solution than the heavy bombers which had attacked unsuccessfully. To the best of my knowledge, the only Australian logistical support to this operation was that the UK tanker, RFA Arndale, which had been based at Fremantle supporting the RAN, sailed to join the Underway Replenishment Group consisting of three other tankers and the groups escorts. RAN and RNZN pilots took part in the attacks alongside RN FAA pilots.

                    Regarding the Avenger, that was the best tool for the job, though it was cumbersome and slow; they could carry a heavier payload than the Fairey Barracudas, as you say because of climatic conditions which reduced their combat radius by 30%. Fairey Fireflies did take part in the attacks, though in a ground strafing and escort to the bombers role. Its interesting that in 1945, when getting into carrier operations, the RCN chose the Fairey Firefly over US designs, and indeed operated the aircraft from its carriers until 1954. Likewise, when in 1947 the RAN got into carrier operations, they opted for Fairey Fireflies, and indeed were loaned UK Fireflies for operations during the Korean War. Not to criticise the US aircraft, the Fairey Firefly must have been assessed to be the best fit for both navies, and what they wanted to achieve, just as the Avenger was for the RN Pacific Fleet in late 1944. It seems too that the UK RN still did have a fair degree of influence and co-operation with the RAN post-war despite the apparent tilt towards Pearl Harbour.








                    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      After a weekend away only now I have time to reply.

                      Originally posted by spider View Post
                      The UK nuclear deterrent is not only an insurance policy for this country, it is for the entire North Atlantic region.

                      Only eight navies in the world operate conventional aircraft carriers, they are an invaluable asset and in some circumstances a strategic gamechanger. That the RN have invested in and are almost there in terms of full carrier operating capability gives NATO and the UKs other allies more options to deter our enemies. That has to be a good thing, so I'm really puzzled when I read comments dissing that.
                      ​​​​​​

                      I don’t doubt the need for RN subs and the carriers but my main point is that through lack of funding since the 1991 Gulf War, UK Forces have maintained those capabilities at the cost of their other conventional warfighting capabilities. Not just in the Royal Navy. That hollowing out is present in the RAF and British Army as well. To run the nuclear subs, carriers and do all the rest they should have been consistently spending north of 3% of GDP rather than slipping under 2% during much of the Tory parties stewardship post the 2010 strategic review. My view is at best UK Forces wont get any bigger or better. With Australian capabilities they will continue to strengthen as it moves from being a middle power into a regional power.

                      Originally posted by spider View Post
                      I really don't want to get into 'Top Trumps' with you about UK vs Australia defence capabilities. However, even a cursory glance at how mainstream defence commentators rank the worlds militaries will show that the UK is far more militarily capable than Australia; and anyway both militaries have different missions and focusses so comparing them isn't as straightforward as they have more or less of X,Y & Z. However, Australia is the sixth largest country in the world by land mass, and has the worlds third largest EEZ. They should have the equipment to defend their sovereignty and to support their allies. Yet Australia are having to ditch other defence programmes to fund AUKUS (new Army armour order slashed by 75%) so lets not kid ourselves that all is rosy in the world of Australian defence procurement. It really isn't.
                      The decision by the ADF to slash the AS-21 Redback order was not based on AUKUS considerations, but came from the 2023 Strategic Review to add a new long range fires capability to their ORBAT. The AS-21 was originally earmarked to replace all the tracked M113’s. The strategic refresh choose instead HIMARS batteries along with 129 AS-21 Redbacks, 45 AS-9/10 Huntsman and continue the 211 Boxer CRV order, noting that there are over further 1000 Bushmasters provided armoured mobility.

                      Top Ten military lists are BS. A ToE list only tells part of the story. It is not just about the numbers but the quality within those numbers. For example when it comes to combat coded assets with respect to air combat, the RAF will have a numerical advantage in Typhoons and F-35B’s versus the RAAF’s Block III F/A-18F’s and F-35A’s. However the RAAF swings that back with respect to greater depth in their tier 1 force enablers with more P-8’s, more MQ-4C Tritons, more E-7’s, plus a dozen EA-18G Growlers and 4 MC-55’s (a massive capability gap for the RAF compared to the RAAF in the EW/EA sphere) all to increase the networked joint force lethality of their Block III F/A-18F’s and F-35A’s and survivability of their air mobility assets in which 8 C-17's each and 22 A400M's versus 20 C-130J-30's and 12 C-27J's is neither here nor there. The RAF on paper has a greater tanker capability with 14 Voyagers however the RAAF, which will eventually operate 9 KC-30A’s is able to do both P&D and Boom A2A something not possible in the RAF even though they will operate E-7 and P-8 albeit in smaller numbers. Furthermore the RAAF KC-30A variant possesses airborne battlespace communication node (ABCN) capabilities lacking in the Voyager. Through Project Jericho the RAAF have achieved a world-class force coherency with respect to their operational warfighting capability.

                      Australia is now also the 12th largest economy in the world, a similar size to South Korea and Italy. It is also 8th in the world when rank by capital wealth value.

                      Originally posted by spider View Post
                      ​​​​​​
                      With regards to AUKUS, its not the case that the UK have lost the critical mass to be able to build submarines. If you have a credible source which can cite reliable evidence to support that view, then please put up a link, I'd be genuinely interested in having a look at that. What does seem to be the case, from what I've read, is that by collaborating on the design and build of a new class of SBNs, the UK and Australia could build boats more cheaply and faster than the US. Also, the political scene in the US at present suggests that the UK may be a more secure partner for Australia in all of this than the US, with Trump's (or one of his proxies) 'America First' policies. You mention well-documented problems with RN submarines; the only issue I am aware of with the Astute Class currently is the problems getting them dry-docked, a legacy of post Cold-War defence cuts which are now biting the MOD in the arse. Work is underway to rapidly resolve this, as far as I can understand. Whilst the lead boat had (now resolved) teething problems, the vessels themselves are cutting edge, equal in capability to the Virginia Class. And in any case, even if they were junk, the AUKUS boats will be a new design.
                      Rolls-Royce Submarines and BAE do well in terms of propulsion and design but there are critical gaps in the ability to produce nuclear subs. A prime example of what I was alluding to regarding critical mass is the inability of the UK supplier base to now produce its own high-pressure capable steel, essential for tier 1 submarines.

                      ttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925356/steel-pipeline.pdf

                      That critical mass also comes under the spotlight with respect to workforce and ongoing budget challenges. Read the House of Commons, Defence Committee - UK Defence and the Indo-Pacific (Eleventh Report of Session 2022–23) where it says that a fundamental challenge is the continuing lack of clarity about how many submarines will ultimately be built, the cost, and the availability of a skilled workforce.​​​​​​

                      People fail to digest that it was the Trump administration that developed the draft of the AUKUS pact before stepping down in January 2021. The AUKUS deal had been worked on during 2020 by the Morrison government with the Trump administration and the UK under BoJo. It was not just conjured up suddenly in July 2021. The Australians are pumping $3 Billion into Electric Boat to underpin the construction of their Virginia Class boats in Connecticut and last week though the FY25 US defence appropriation the DoD has invested alongside the Australian contribution to increase the production drumbeat. Trump will likely be bad for Europe however because Australia things will likely go a fair bit easier.

                      This is the take from Professor John Blaxland of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University​ in The Conversation a blog put out under the auspices of Australia and NZ leading Universities.

                      Amid reports of a dip in US production of nuclear submarines and concerns about the future of the agreement under Donald Trump, some have questioned the viability of AUKUS. But they need not worry.


                      Originally posted by spider View Post
                      Op MERIDIAN was not logistically supported by the Australian Government. The British Pacific Fleet, formed at Trincomalee in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) was due to sail to Sydney from where it would be based and operate in the Pacific.
                      Yes you could be right on Meridian with respect to direct fleet support at that stage. Though both the Australian and New Zealand governments did direct a significant amount of financial and material resources to support the BPF to make it work because both nations economies were in far better shape that Britain at that stage in the war and devoted assets into the fleet.

                      Originally posted by spider View Post
                      It seems too that the UK RN still did have a fair degree of influence and co-operation with the RAN post-war despite the apparent tilt towards Pearl Harbour.
                      In the initial stages Post war that was true - when the RN was still the second most powerful navy in the world. Cooperation lasted much longer than influence.

                      The RAN operated two Light Fleet Carriers and a number of Cruisers in those days as well as the Type 12's. However by the time the ANZUS Treaty was signed in the 1950's and through to the end of the Vietnam War and the election of the Whitlam labour government saw a huge cultural, strategic and economic shift by Australia to the USA.

                      Not many people know this but the NZ Naval Board was offered a Colossus Class carrier in 1947 in addition to the two Cruisers and six frigates they acquired and they were highly interested but in the end could not justify the additional manpower requirements.
                      Last edited by Anzac; 18 March 2024, 09:54.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Anzac View Post
                        After a weekend away only now I have time to reply.

                        ​​​​​​

                        I don’t doubt the need for RN subs and the carriers but my main point is that through lack of funding since the 1991 Gulf War, UK Forces have maintained those capabilities at the cost of their other conventional warfighting capabilities. Not just in the Royal Navy. That hollowing out is present in the RAF and British Army as well. To run the nuclear subs, carriers and do all the rest they should have been consistently spending north of 3% of GDP rather than slipping under 2% during much of the Tory parties stewardship post the 2010 strategic review. My view is at best UK Forces wont get any bigger or better. With Australian capabilities they will continue to strengthen as it moves from being a middle power into a regional power.



                        The decision by the ADF to slash the AS-21 Redback order was not based on AUKUS considerations, but came from the 2023 Strategic Review to add a new long range fires capability to their ORBAT. The AS-21 was originally earmarked to replace all the tracked M113’s. The strategic refresh choose instead HIMARS batteries along with 129 AS-21 Redbacks, 45 AS-9/10 Huntsman and continue the 211 Boxer CRV order, noting that there are over further 1000 Bushmasters provided armoured mobility.

                        Top Ten military lists are BS. A ToE list only tells part of the story. It is not just about the numbers but the quality within those numbers. For example when it comes to combat coded assets with respect to air combat, the RAF will have a numerical advantage in Typhoons and F-35B’s versus the RAAF’s Block III F/A-18F’s and F-35A’s. However the RAAF swings that back with respect to greater depth in their tier 1 force enablers with more P-8’s, more MQ-4C Tritons, more E-7’s, plus a dozen EA-18G Growlers and 4 MC-55’s (a massive capability gap for the RAF compared to the RAAF in the EW/EA sphere) all to increase the networked joint force lethality of their Block III F/A-18F’s and F-35A’s and survivability of their air mobility assets in which 8 C-17's each and 22 A400M's versus 20 C-130J-30's and 12 C-27J's is neither here nor there. The RAF on paper has a greater tanker capability with 14 Voyagers however the RAAF, which will eventually operate 9 KC-30A’s is able to do both P&D and Boom A2A something not possible in the RAF even though they will operate E-7 and P-8 albeit in smaller numbers. Furthermore the RAAF KC-30A variant possesses airborne battlespace communication node (ABCN) capabilities lacking in the Voyager. Through Project Jericho the RAAF have achieved a world-class force coherency with respect to their operational warfighting capability.

                        Australia is now also the 12th largest economy in the world, a similar size to South Korea and Italy. It is also 8th in the world when rank by capital wealth value.



                        Rolls-Royce Submarines and BAE do well in terms of propulsion and design but there are critical gaps in the ability to produce nuclear subs. A prime example of what I was alluding to regarding critical mass is the inability of the UK supplier base to now produce its own high-pressure capable steel, essential for tier 1 submarines.

                        ttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925356/steel-pipeline.pdf

                        That critical mass also comes under the spotlight with respect to workforce and ongoing budget challenges. Read the House of Commons, Defence Committee - UK Defence and the Indo-Pacific (Eleventh Report of Session 2022–23) where it says that a fundamental challenge is the continuing lack of clarity about how many submarines will ultimately be built, the cost, and the availability of a skilled workforce.​​​​​​

                        People fail to digest that it was the Trump administration that developed the draft of the AUKUS pact before stepping down in January 2021. The AUKUS deal had been worked on during 2020 by the Morrison government with the Trump administration and the UK under BoJo. It was not just conjured up suddenly in July 2021. The Australians are pumping $3 Billion into Electric Boat to underpin the construction of their Virginia Class boats in Connecticut and last week though the FY25 US defence appropriation the DoD has invested alongside the Australian contribution to increase the production drumbeat. Trump will likely be bad for Europe however because Australia things will likely go a fair bit easier.

                        This is the take from Professor John Blaxland of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University​ in The Conversation a blog put out under the auspices of Australia and NZ leading Universities.

                        Amid reports of a dip in US production of nuclear submarines and concerns about the future of the agreement under Donald Trump, some have questioned the viability of AUKUS. But they need not worry.




                        Yes you could be right on Meridian with respect to direct fleet support at that stage. Though both the Australian and New Zealand governments did direct a significant amount of financial and material resources to support the BPF to make it work because both nations economies were in far better shape that Britain at that stage in the war and devoted assets into the fleet.



                        In the initial stages Post war that was true - when the RN was still the second most powerful navy in the world. Cooperation lasted much longer than influence.

                        The RAN operated two Light Fleet Carriers and a number of Cruisers in those days as well as the Type 12's. However by the time the ANZUS Treaty was signed in the 1950's and through to the end of the Vietnam War and the election of the Whitlam labour government saw a huge cultural, strategic and economic shift by Australia to the USA.

                        Not many people know this but the NZ Naval Board was offered a Colossus Class carrier in 1947 in addition to the two Cruisers and six frigates they acquired and they were highly interested but in the end could not justify the additional manpower requirements.
                        Evening Anzac,

                        My turn to apologise, this week has run away with me, in the run up to Easter leave things have been hectic. You make a number of points in your post in response to what I have written, unfortunately I’m not sure how to reply with the quotes broken up but please bear with me.

                        I don’t agree that the UK Armed Forces, in particular the Royal Navy won’t get bigger or better. A few examples; the re-introduction of an aircraft carrier capability, the plan to expand the escort fleet to 24 hulls, the introduction of the first of two planned survey and surveillance ships in response to the acute Russian threat in the North Atlantic. The RN is evolving to meet the current threats to the UKs and our allies sea lines of communication. Conversely, the Army is getting smaller, but is receiving critical equipment updates in the next few years. I agree with you about defence spending; I’m not into or interested in politics but there is a lot of pressure on Sunack to find more money for defence at this time, what that would be spent on will be a matter for the Defence Chiefs of Staff and the Treasury. My view of Australia is that they are already a regional power, but they need to invest in their own Armed Forces and rely less on the US / UK, my original point. That they are taking steps to do so is to be welcomed.

                        I’ve read several articles / papers online which suggest that the AS-21 / fires cutbacks were, as well as to fund HIMARS / Maritime Strike, to fund AUKUS Submarines. For example –
                        AUKUS: Army vehicles get the chop as government frees up money (smh.com.au)

                        And also that other capabilities are being cut to fund the same. For example –

                        Defence budget cuts to maintenance to pay for new AUKUS submarines, weapons systems (afr.com)

                        All very regrettable, and similar to what is happening both in the UK and US.

                        Bushmaster is a good bit of kit; I travelled in them fairly often in Afghanistan.

                        If you believe that how credible military commentators rank military capability is BS, then that’s up to you. I told you I wasn’t getting into a ‘Top Trumps’ debate with you about UK vs Aus military capabilities, such an argument would prove eristical and I don’t think any of the contributors here would thank either of us for that. In my opinion the UK is militarily streets ahead of the Australian military at this time and I’m leaving it at that. Hopefully with a growing economy Australia can consolidate their Armed Forces by the middle of this century.

                        I’ll repeat myself again; the UK has not lost the critical mass to build submarines. UK shipbuilding is pretty much at capacity with MOD orders at present, with H&W Belfast and Appledore being given £70 million to regenerate shipbuilding capacity there ahead of the FSS order. That is an investment in sovereign capability and the UKs national security. In terms of submarines, BAE Barrow are currently building x2 Astute Class SSNs (Agamemnon to be handed over this year) plus x3 Dreadnought Class SSBNs. BAE have been chosen to take the lead on building the AUKUS Submarines for Australia -

                        UK firm appointed to build Australian AUKUS submarines - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

                        That’s a sensible move, given the current political climate in the US –

                        How Biden’s budget plunged the Aukus nuclear subs pact into doubt (msn.com)

                        That the UK can’t currently domestically produce steel for submarine pressure hulls is a moot point really; it’s just a question of certifying the production process and the steel can be bought from a NATO partner, France, so whats the point? Parts for US submarines are made in the UK; that’s what allied nations do.

                        That’s a good article about the potential implications of a Trump presidency, my opinion only but I think he’d throw Australia and the UK under a bus at the drop of a hat if it was in his self-interests. Rather than hope that AUKUS survives under Trump, I’m just crossing my fingers that the world as we know it will survive under another four years of that individual.

                        Yes, of course the Canberra government provided significant logistical and financial support to the BPF. They were based out of Sydney. Conversely, the Australian economy benefitted from ship repair / support activities, the employment of local civilians, and RN crews spending their money locally. This is a US Naval Institute article on the BPF; its worth a read if you want their view on the RN contribution to the Pacific theatre –

                        The Royal Navy's Pacific Strike Force | Naval History Magazine - February 2013 Volume 27, Number 1 (usni.org)

                        As regards an Australian strategic shift from the UK to the US, it seems that things have come full circle. I’m happy about that; the Aussies are great.






                        Last edited by spider; 21 March 2024, 22:49.
                        'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Almost $5 billion will go to British industry in the next decade to help design and build key parts of Australia's future nuclear-powered submarine fleet that will be constructed in Adelaide.


                          The Australian government has also earmarked a similar investment into US Industry enabling Electric Boat to increase production of the Virginia's.

                          Let's agree to disagree with respect to where we see the current and future status of the ADF and UK Forces.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X