In response to "Good Putin’s" December 31, 2023 comments:
Following likely nuclear weapon proliferation to South Korea (SK) and then Japan in the 2030s, Australia may see SSNs as future hypersonic nuclear missile armed SSGNs. The extreme amounts we are spending on AUKUS SSNs would then make "bang for the buck" sense. SSGNs are capable of quickly moving to threaten the Chinas and Russias of this world.
In contrast Australia's isolation makes diesel-electric powered VLS armed SSKs (called SSBs) deficient - be they SK KSS-3s, Swedish A26s or future Japanese VLS subs. Australia based SSKs or SSBs would have neither the range nor speed to be useful in Middle East or Taiwan Strait scenarios, against the Chinese or Russian mainlands, or against those countries’ nuclear subs.
I think an Australian submarine VLS capability would also amount to overkill in our "arc of instability". China could well exploit that instability by taking over the sick men of the arc (the Solomons or East Timor). But hostile lodgements in these islands could be handled by RAAF aircraft with loyal Ghost Bats or the land or torpedo tube launch of our new Tomahawks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#Australia
If AUKUS SSNs don't eventuate then the US should have no excuse in blocking Australia from acquiring French Barracuda SSNs armed with MdCN land attack missiles or future French hypersonic missiles.
4 comments:
Doesn't Australia have a Visitng Forces Agreement with Philippines? Once they build their submarine basing facilities. The RAN SSK subs can stopover there to refuel or re-arm. With the Philippine Navy's leading proponent being Hanhwa Ocean/HHIs KSS-III, the RAN and PN could synchronize or integrate their submarine forces should the RAN also pick the KSS-III/DSME 3000. This could answer the range problem. Either way, it would be prudent for the RAN to have both SSKs and SSNs. The presence of SSKs nearby during peacetime could maintain a necessary amount of tension before escalation via SSNS while also derisking such expensive assets and maintaining a deterrent in the Indian Ocean and Philippine Sea (Not the west).
Hi Anonymous at 1/02/2024 9:25 PM
Australia has visiting forces or similar agreements with several ASEAN governments, eg. refueling at Singapore. Australia might do most of its long-range international refueling at Diego Garcia or Guam.
The Philippine Navy's new submarine service may be aiming a little high if it tries to convince the Philippine Government that the world's largest (and with it, the most expensive?) operational SSK, the HO KSS-III, would be a logical choice for the Philippines first submarine.
More frequently mentioned for the Philippines is the more economical HO Chang Bogo Type 209 variant or the Scorpene.
With Australia extending the life of the Collins SSK out to 2042, while we may, subject to Trump, be operating 3 Virginias, I don't know whether our $100s of Billions of submarine expenditure will stretch to a third submarine - the KSS-III.
In any case if AUKUS fell through and we bought the KSS-III Australia dealing with that sub's parent South Korean Navy makes most sense especially for major repairs and upgrades.
Cheers Pete
Hi Pete, thanks for your reply. I do want to ask, why the need for Oz subs to reach other continents? Isn't the whole point is to defend the waters throughout Australia and Asia so to speak since the threat is China? Or am I missing the bigger picture? Still don't see the need for AUKUS or Virginia subs. It's way too overpriced.
Hi Good Putin at
See my response at "No SSNs for Australia Without Pledge of Supporting US" of January 7, 2024 at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2024/01/no-ssns-for-australia-without-pledge-of.html
Regards Pete
Post a Comment