I’m using a different format for this article which draws on Anonymous's comment originally made on January 24, 2022. First will be Anonymous's comments in black and then my responses in red:
Hi Pete: B1: I am not advocating sending Australian submarines to Ukraine. My intent was to point out that Ukraine may have impact on next crisis relevant to Australian navy, where China would use the crisis in Europe as a distraction, to be exploited by a move in the South China Sea. That would create the scenario that AUKUS was founded to address, and indeed the LIKELIEST next big thing for the Australian navy. This would mean that the next Australian adventure would be with China, and in the very near term.
Thanks Anonymous: re B1: Yes China could use a NATO (especially US) distraction of upgraded Russian activity against Ukraine for China to make inroads into the South China Sea and/or territory held by Taiwan.
Australia would then need to await US leadership in any Australian naval activity against China. AUKUS is not yet a NATO Article 5 style "trip wire alliance" and, in any case, Taiwan is not a member.
B2: I think I read something in your blog discussing the possibility of depot ships to support forward submarines (before Australia decided on SSN's), though you were not very keen on that. If depot ships were to be forward based, they may have to be in ports that are not in Australia. From this, I extrapolated that if AUKUS has allies close to the South China Sea, those are the ports where the subs would need to be based. Perhaps you were meaning Guam and or Diego Garcia, but I assumed that the nature of the conflict would have an impact on the choice of ports.
Re B2: If by "depot ships" you mean Submarine Tenders these are sizable ships now only used by the US (as far as I know). The US now has just two remaining submarine tenders of the Emory S. Land-class. One or both of these 2 ships are sometimes at US Naval Base Guam ("Apra") or one of them is at US Naval Base Diego Garcia (its formal name is Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia). Both US Naval Bases have comprehensive facilities that can be used for surface warships and airforce units to defend the submarine tenders and the submarines that use them.
Australian Collins submarines very likely use these tenders and/or the Guam and Diego Garcia base facilities eg. for diesel refueling or to fly in critical spare parts. It makes little sense for Australia to double up with its own tenders in the naval bases of allies, eg. US, New Zealand or Singaporean naval bases.
Australian potential forward bases are considered inappropriate for tenders eg. Port of Darwin (too shallow and adverse tides) or Australia's Cocos islands (too small and isolated for the substantial surface warships and air power needed to defend tenders and their submarines in port).
C: I agree that Australia, like any country, wants to control its own military, but in a large conflict, such as world wars I and II where the outcome is uncertain, smaller allies try to maximize the chance of an allied win more than their own control. To misquote Donald Rumsfeld, The war you have to prepare for is the war you are likely to get, not the one you want to get. The whole point of my letter is that the Australian navy is not choosing the scenario: It can at best adapt to the most dangerous likely scenario. In war, the bad guys choose the time, place and scenario. I think a near term Moscow/Beijing axis breakout is the most likely scenario. If you don't agree, what scenarios do you think are more dangerous/likely?
C: I think Australia basically having a SSN squadron/flotilla within the USN of UK RN would remove too much independent Australian action. This is particularly during major conflicts when those allies might have their own ideas or intentions for Australian SSNs on hand.
However, there is already close interaction with US and UK nuclear submarines visiting one Australian base. That is US and UK SSNs and US SSGNs occasionally visiting Australia's main submarine base called HMAS Stirling "Fleet Base West" which is just south of Perth, Western Australia. Over several decades the USN has thought about using HMAS Stirling as a US nuclear submarine crew change-over base, but the US has decided not to, so far.
Increased US (and maybe UK) nuclear submarine visits or even temporary basing at HMAS Stirling may become an outgrowth of AUKUS.
E: I do follow other sources, but I find yours most educational. You are very smart and well informed, but I sometimes disagree with you on requirements and war scenarios. On technology and operational issues you are the best teacher I found.
Best regards. I am still a fan.
E. Thanks so much Anonymous. Praise like yours keeps me writing.
Cheers Pete
No comments:
Post a Comment