RAN's Collins class replacement

[Bigfella]

Like Buck said, after the Exocets at the Falklands, the French can go screw themselves with that "Mon dieu! How could ALLIES do that us!" crap.

It is worth pointing out to the unfamilar that the French part of this 'alliance' has never pulled its weight from an Australian POV. We are down several tens of thousands of people from WW1 and in the subsequent century France has done SFA for us. Tending graves is nice (though I suspect we actually do quite a bit of that ourselves), but its not really an 'alliance'.

It is also worth pointing out that New Zealand's contribution to saving France in two world wars didn't stop France from blowing up a Greenpeace ship in Auckland harbour and putting extreme pressure on NZ to release the two French officers/terrorists who were guilty of the crime.

As I said in a earlier post - Fuck. Right. Off.

[Monash]

Why ? he's just pointing out the overuse of the A-word. Been thrown around a lot with this deal. They're referring to it as an alliance. It's not. It's a deal.....

Addressing just a couple of these points;

'The alliance is between AUS & US. Brits want in then tie the knot.'

At this stage it looks like the British are fully committed to signing up.

'But when it comes to Aussies/Kiwis fighting for UK or vice versa that is not defined as yet. They've done so in the past but those were different times.'

The only real issue is geography. For decades Britain has (for obvious reasons) focused on the potential threats in the European theater. That was and will remain their main concern. Likewise Australia primary interests lay in potential threats to peace in SEA. Problem is that in any realistic scenario while both sides would see the benefits of assisting the other in the event of war neither side really has the capacity to deploy significant land assets in time to make a difference and insufficient air and sea assets make a significant contribution without 'leaving the cupboard bare' at home. The exception would be scenarios like the Gulf War etc where the allies had time to build up their forces locally well in advance of hostiles breaking out - which is NOT a situation that's likely to arise in either Europe or Asia

'BF's a full on Aussie Republican that wants nothing to do with the UK.'

Perhaps, but based on his posts one could assume also he's astute enough to distinguish between republicanism as a political structure for Australia and issues relating to international trade and defense relationships. The two are not the same. Australia could vote to become a republic tomorrow and it wouldn't change the intrinsic nature of its diplomatic relationship with the UK. For that matter (and to the extent it does matter) there's nothing to stop Australia becoming a republic and still remaining part of the Commonwealth. The change would be purely an internal one, it wouldn't effect our treaty status with the UK at all.

'Americans got a good deal out of this one. The Aussies are going to be their spearhead in the SCS.' and

'They are going to be operating way north of the equator.'

Those two claims IMO are drawing a long bow. Firstly the US has and will have waaaaay more SSNs in service by the time Australia gets its full complement of boats. What is it something like 60-70? vs our max of 12 hulls? (Assuming we get that many). So while we could definitely make a useful contribution we're not exactly in a position to 'lead the way'. Secondly the US already has multiple bases (and allies) in the NEA region and given our geographic location there's no particular reason we would be expected to regularly operate in the 'contested zone' when other allies more or less have to by default.

Continue with routine 'showing the flag' ops in the South China Sea like other Western nation have? Yes. Engage in joint naval exercises with allied navies in the North Pacific definitely. Thumb our noses at China by regulatory and openly deploying deploying SSN's into the South China Sea unilaterally? No.

IMO one of the great diplomatic successes of Australian Foreign Policy of late has been its handling of our ongoing disputes with China whereby the Chinese Government has been seen to issue public threats and ultimatums then follow through with trade sanctions only to be be met with calm, reasoned objections to their statements (and actions) and the referral of all their sanctions to the relevant tribunals.

I think its been both clever and highly effective. China has more or less painted itself into a corner on the world stage on this issue as 'the bully'. Australia has been nothing but 'polite' in it's responses so China can neither point to any reciprocal threats or abuse nor to an penalties we have imposed on their exports to us. Add to that their trade sanctions have so far ended up having little or no effect. We'll there have been two effects. A) We've started to diversify away from our reliance on China as a trade partner & B) Chinese consumers and manufactures have faced higher prices for raw materials and consumer products previously sourced from Australia. So on that basis IMO we're 'winning' the diplomatic fight. Flaunting our new assets in China's face would, I think be unnecessarily provocative and counter to our previous stance. It suffices that China will know we can surge significant assets into the South China Sea - if they give us cause to. Plus we have other areas of concern as well.

[Firestorm]

Sure, and Indians are just Pakistanis with a sillier religion.

Touché. I guess I deserved that.

[Bigfella]

Touché. I guess I deserved that.

You did.

[Bigfella]

The alliance is between AUS & US. Brits want in then tie the knot.'

At this stage it looks like the British are fully committed to signing up.

'But when it comes to Aussies/Kiwis fighting for UK or vice versa that is not defined as yet. They've done so in the past but those were different times.'

The only real issue is geography. For decades Britain has (for obvious reasons) focused on the potential threats in the European theater. That was and will remain their main concern. Likewise Australia primary interests lay in potential threats to peace in SEA. Problem is that in any realistic scenario while both sides would see the benefits of assisting the other in the event of war neither side really has the capacity to deploy significant land assets in time to make a difference and insufficient air and sea assets make a significant contribution without 'leaving the cupboard bare' at home. The exception would be scenarios like the Gulf War etc where the allies had time to build up their forces locally well in advance of hostiles breaking out - which is NOT a situation that's likely to arise in either Europe or Asia

This is very much the point. Britain may have weapons systems capable of global reach, but it is not a global power. Asia is a LONG way away and keeping any worthwhile assets here in a fashion that would be useful in a conflict is simply not practical. Post Brexit Boris is casting about desperately looking to buttress his 'Global Britain' rhetoric. This is a perfect fit. It may result in tech exchange, weapons sales & exercises now and again, but any ongoing British expenditure in the Indo/Pacific will be an easy item for a future government to cut.

'BF's a full on Aussie Republican that wants nothing to do with the UK.'

Credit where due, the quality of DE's analysis is relentlessly consistent. No improvement in years.

Perhaps, but based on his posts one could assume also he's astute enough to distinguish between republicanism as a political structure for Australia and issues relating to international diplomacy and defense relationships. The two are not the same. Australia could vote to become a republic tomorrow and it wouldn't change the intrinsic nature of its diplomatic relationship with the UK. For that matter to the extent it even matters there's nothing to stop Australia becoming a republic and still remaining part of the Commonwealth. The change would be purely internal one, it wouldn't effect our treaty status with the UK at all.

Correct. The Queen and that odd thing in the top corner of our flag have ZERO bearing on strategic considerations. I would accept UK assistance in a heartbeat. There is just no reason to believe it can be relied on. It was unreliable enough when we actually were an important UK defence partner, and that hasn't been the case since the 60s.

'Americans got a good deal out of this one. The Aussies are going to be their spearhead in the SCS.' and

'They are going to be operating way north of the equator.'

Those two claims IMO are drawing a long bow. Firstly the US has and will have waaaaay more SSNs in service by the time Australia gets its full complement of boats. What is it something like 60-70? vs our max of 12 hulls? (Assuming we get that many). So while we could definitely make a useful contribution we're not exactly in a position to 'lead the way'. Secondly the US already has multiple other bases (and allies) in the NEA region and given our location so there's no particular reason we would be expected to regularly operate in the 'contested zone' when other allies more or less have to by default.

Continue with routine 'showing the flag' ops in the South China Sea like other Western nation have? Yes. Engage in joint naval exercises with allied navies in the North Pacific definitely. Thumb our noses at China by regulatory and openly deploying deploying SSN's into the South China sea unilaterally? No.

Agree again. While I can see us occasionally flying the flag north of the equator, it will be a peripheral focus. We will be looking to work with our partners in Sth East Asia and with India. US operations in those areas will be of more significance than an area where Japan, Taiwan & Sth Korea are the major US partners.

[Monash]

.....
Correct. The Queen and that odd thing in the top corner of our flag have ZERO bearing on strategic considerations. I would accept UK assistance in a heartbeat. There is just no reason to believe it can be relied on. It was unreliable enough when we actually were an important UK defence partner, and that hasn't been the case since the 60s.

'That odd thing'? You say that here BF but if or rather when we become a republic the Queen (or probably King by then) will still be making regular 'showing the crown' visits on behalf of the UK Government. And when they do? Well I can see it now...

There you'll be. At one of the best vantage points, waiting for his or her majesty to pass by. Waiting for that brief glimpse. The flag of the Aussie republic clutched proudly in one hand and the British flag clutched with equal pride in the other. Standing in a front row position, cheering and waving madly along with the rest of the crowd. A big grin on your face.

Ah, just thinking about it brings a tear to my eye.

[Firestorm]

If Australia ends up in a fight with China New Zealand MIGHT help us depending on circumstances. They might send one of their two combat vessels, or maybe both of them if they are on a really good mood! That is basically it.

As stated, Britain won't do much more than use harsh language unless they see some vital interest involved. They were perfectly happy to screw us the one time we were actually threatened with invasion and just as happy to ditch us several decades later when they decided having significant military resources in the Indian ocean made no sense. Sentiment will get us nothing and we know it.

I must admit I wasn't really aware of the details of the past betrayal by the UK. No wonder you are pissed. Still I'd like to believe things would be different now. In the unlikely scenario where the Chinese get belligerent with you the US is not going to sit that out for sure. The Brits followed the Yankees into Iraq despite the lack of a UNSC sanction. If they opt to watch from the sidelines again as the US defends Australia their own people might be more than a little pissed off.

[Monash]

Although I have to say if we're relying on NZ to save us, we're really in trouble! Maybe if Fiji invaded, beyond that?

[Bigfella]

'That odd thing'? You say that here BF but if or rather when we become a republic the Queen (or probably King by then) will still be making regular 'showing the crown' visits on behalf of the UK Government. And when they do? Well I can see it now...

There you'll be. At one of the best vantage points, waiting for his or her majesty to pass by. Waiting for that brief glimpse. The flag of the Aussie republic clutched proudly in one hand and the British flag clutched with equal pride in the other. Standing in a front row position, cheering and waving madly along with the rest of the crowd. A big grin on your face.

Ah, just thinking about it brings a tear to my eye.

As a 10 year old we visited London during the Trooping of the Colour. I got to see Lizzy ride past on a horse in her nice uniform. It impressed me as a 10 year old, can't say I'd walk a block to see it now. A few years later the recently married Charles & Di stayed on a farm not far from my home town & we all headed off to the airport to see them arrive. Even then I was starting to wonder if all the fuss was really justified.

Flash forward to the day Ms 'I'm too important to wear a seatbelt' went head first through the windscreen. I was stuck in a car for 12 hours with someone who just needed to know every detail the second it was announced. All I wanted was a bloody footy score. Pretty much the only thing the Bolsheviks & I agree on is the appropriate use for royals - target practice.

[Bigfella]

I must admit I wasn't really aware of the details of the past betrayal by the UK. No wonder you are pissed. Still I'd like to believe things would be different now. In the unlikely scenario where the Chinese get belligerent with you the US is not going to sit that out for sure. The Brits followed the Yankees into Iraq despite the lack of a UNSC sanction. If they opt to watch from the sidelines again as the US defends Australia their own people might be more than a little pissed off.

'Pissed' is probably overstating it, but past behaviour does tend to shatter any illusions we might have about what the UK will or won't do. They will act in their national interest, not ours. They always did. Same with the US. Given our recent faithfulness as an ally we have a more receptive audience in the US, but that only gets you so far.

As for the US/UK alliance, don't get carried away there either. It is one thing to intervene in the ME against a minor regional power. It is quite another to traipse half way across the world to take on the world's largest nation and rising world power. Its an apples to elephants comparison. The UK has sat out plenty of US wars, inculding some a lot closer to home & easier to manage than China. I'm not saying its impossible, just unlikely.

I would also move away from the 'defending Australia' idea. We aren't directly in the firing line. Lots of ocean & other nations between us & China. if China is threatening our territory then the US & any other allies have already exited the region. I doubt any of us will be alive to see China gain the sort of strategic position that would allow them to threaten us, much less any interest in doing so.

[Double Edge]

Touché. I guess I deserved that.

Nah, did you see what he said.

Sure, and Indians are just Pakistanis with a sillier religion.

Got it backwards.

Paks are an artificial state with a people of Indian decent that think they're Arab. Can such people be normal ? HAH

We don't derive form the Paks now do we

He also thinks the Hindu religion is sillier than the Islamic one. hehe.

Paks are the ones on the expansionist drive. They want to link up with the Chinese to take you lot on. The Indian CDS referred to it as a Sino Wahabbi alliance.

See how it works, the terror thing comes up the west looks at them. China is off the radar and grows quietly.

Now the west is looking at China, guess what the others are going to do. Try and get that attention back.

They go on about the French but the Paks screwed them over ten times more.

We're still waiting for response.

[Double Edge]

'The alliance is between AUS & US. Brits want in then tie the knot.'

At this stage it looks like the British are fully committed to signing up.

Once you get something in writing you're good.

Until such time i believe the intent of Euan's post is a PSA for Aussies not to get the wrong idea.

'But when it comes to Aussies/Kiwis fighting for UK or vice versa that is not defined as yet. They've done so in the past but those were different times.'

The only real issue is geography. For decades Britain has (for obvious reasons) focused on the potential threats in the European theater. That was and will remain their main concern. Likewise Australia primary interests lay in potential threats to peace in SEA. Problem is that in any realistic scenario while both sides would see the benefits of assisting the other in the event of war neither side really has the capacity to deploy significant land assets in time to make a difference and insufficient air and sea assets make a significant contribution without 'leaving the cupboard bare' at home. The exception would be scenarios like the Gulf War etc where the allies had time to build up their forces locally well in advance of hostiles breaking out - which is NOT a situation that's likely to arise in either Europe or Asia

Fine but this only reinforces what Euan said, absent a treaty. Or given the constraints whether a treaty even matters at all. Not if the Brits are unable to comply.

'BF's a full on Aussie Republican that wants nothing to do with the UK.'

Perhaps, but based on his posts one could assume also he's astute enough to distinguish between republicanism as a political structure for Australia and issues relating to international trade and defense relationships. The two are not the same. Australia could vote to become a republic tomorrow and it wouldn't change the intrinsic nature of its diplomatic relationship with the UK. For that matter (and to the extent it does matter) there's nothing to stop Australia becoming a republic and still remaining part of the Commonwealth. The change would be purely an internal one, it wouldn't effect our treaty status with the UK at all.

And there was a move to do just that a while back but it did not conclude.

Treaty status ?

'Americans got a good deal out of this one. The Aussies are going to be their spearhead in the SCS.' and

'They are going to be operating way north of the equator.'

Those two claims IMO are drawing a long bow. Firstly the US has and will have waaaaay more SSNs in service by the time Australia gets its full complement of boats. What is it something like 60-70? vs our max of 12 hulls? (Assuming we get that many). So while we could definitely make a useful contribution we're not exactly in a position to 'lead the way'. Secondly the US already has multiple bases (and allies) in the NEA region and given our geographic location there's no particular reason we would be expected to regularly operate in the 'contested zone' when other allies more or less have to by default.

Continue with routine 'showing the flag' ops in the South China Sea like other Western nation have? Yes. Engage in joint naval exercises with allied navies in the North Pacific definitely. Thumb our noses at China by regulatory and openly deploying deploying SSN's into the South China Sea unilaterally? No.

Not unilaterally. As part of operations. Why not ? Let me quote from Mathieu's article

• First, we can anticipate operations against Chinese surface ships and submarines, to exploit the weaknesses of the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) anti-submarine warfare technologies. This was most likely the thinking behind the conventional Barracuda problem. In addition to different endurance performances, there will be differences in the weaponry, which is currently unknown. The acoustic signature and noise levels of both types of submarines depend on the maritime environment in which they operate. The spokesman for France’s Defense Ministry is right to point out that "the discretion of a conventional submarine remains paradoxically better than that of a nuclear submarine in certain circumstances". But not all.

• Secondly, because of their speed properties, they will have an escort function during fleet deployments, in order to protect surface vessels against various threats.

• Third, compared to the Barracuda program, we should expect a superior deep strike capability against Chinese military infrastructure. The Australian Navy has just announced it is acquiring Tomahawk missiles for its surface fleet. The choice of the Tomahawk appears logical for its future SSNs, based on the US Navy's Los Angeles class, which has 12 vertical launch tubes.

• Finally, the SSNs make up the classic defense against nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). If Australian SSNs enter service in an environment of a prolonged Sino-American Cold War scenario in the 2030s or 2040s, it is not unthinkable to imagine deployment for tracking Chinese SSBNs after they leave the Yulin base in Hainan or when they dive into the deep waters of the Pacific, after passing through one of the straits of the first island chain to enter on deterrence patrol, something they do not systematically do today. In a wartime scenario, an Australian capacity to neutralize Chinese SSBNs would affect the risk assessment and evaluation of escalation options by both the US and China.

And if it comes to a shooting war i see no objections here.

Aussie SOF's were first into Iraq.

We keep getting told often how good China's carrier sinking hypersonic weapons are. How well do they work under water

IMO one of the great diplomatic successes of Australian Foreign Policy of late has been its handling of our ongoing disputes with China whereby the Chinese Government has been seen to issue public threats and ultimatums then follow through with trade sanctions only to be be met with calm, reasoned objections to their statements (and actions) and the referral of all their sanctions to the relevant tribunals.

I think its been both clever and highly effective. China has more or less painted itself into a corner on the world stage on this issue as 'the bully'. Australia has been nothing but 'polite' in it's responses so China can neither point to any reciprocal threats or abuse nor to an penalties we have imposed on their exports to us. Add to that their trade sanctions have so far ended up having little or no effect. We'll there have been two effects. A) We've started to diversify away from our reliance on China as a trade partner & B) Chinese consumers and manufactures have faced higher prices for raw materials and consumer products previously sourced from Australia. So on that basis IMO we're 'winning' the diplomatic fight. Flaunting our new assets in China's face would, I think be unnecessarily provocative and counter to our previous stance. It suffices that China will know we can surge significant assets into the South China Sea - if they give us cause to. Plus we have other areas of concern as well.

This is how govts that believe in rules based order operate. Kudos.

It's easier to do when you have an ally like the US behind you.

[Albany Rifles]

Please the Asians and piss off the Euros. Can't please everyone .

There is repair work to be done in Europe.

Sub Deal with Aus-UK | Truth of the matter (podcast) | CSIS | Sept 23 2021

I like Mike Green's characterisation of the first island chain as the equivalent of the cold war Fulda Gap. Good analogy.

1, France may be pissed off but that is not the same as Europe. I am sure the Poles, Germans, Italians, Baltics, Low Country nations couldn't give 2 shits whether France got a submarine deal done with Australia. This is a bilateral between US & FR...and as been said, both have moved on as there is so much more common ground to cover.

2. Does Mister Green realize we were prepared to lose the Fulda Gap? Cause we were.

[Albany Rifles]

This is very much the point. Britain may have weapons systems capable of global reach, but it is not a global power. Asia is a LONG way away and keeping any worthwhile assets here in a fashion that would be useful in a conflict is simply not practical. Post Brexit Boris is casting about desperately looking to buttress his 'Global Britain' rhetoric. This is a perfect fit. It may result in tech exchange, weapons sales & exercises now and again, but any ongoing British expenditure in the Indo/Pacific will be an easy item for a future government to cut.

As for this whole sentiment...once Great Britain gave up Hong Kong most of their reasons for having a casus belli vis-a-vis PRC went away.

[Albany Rifles]

Flash forward to the day Ms 'I'm too important to wear a seatbelt' went head first through the windscreen. I was stuck in a car for 12 hours with someone who just needed to know every detail the second it was announced. All I wanted was a bloody footy score. Pretty much the only thing the Bolsheviks & I agree on is the appropriate use for royals - target practice.

Dude!!! Too soon!!!!!

And, Pete, don't ever change!

To understand the attitude of the Brits towards Australia all you need to do is watch the awesome miniseries Gallipoli on Prime. The arrogance of the British generals towards the Australian civil administration, let alone their officers, was well portrayed. That the Australians rapidly pulled their forces out of North Africa after Pearl Harbor clearly demonstrated that after WW 1 Australia would go its own way.