On 7/28/2025 12:53 PM WahooDaddy commented in red. My responses are in black:
Working as a coalition, with the Aussies and JMSDF and other
regional partners, what d'you think the subsurface warfare scene would be like
in the South and East China Seas?
Without full US involvement, with its internationally dominant submarine force and its full access to the IUSS undersea sensor network, regional countries with significant submarine forces (Japan, South Korea, Australia, Vietnam, Singapore, Taiwan (in about 5 years) and others) would be too weak to face the PRC Navy.
This is considering the PRC has SSNs, large forces of conventional submarines, anti-submarine: surface vessels; UAVs; UUVs; satellites; large maritime patrol and carrier aircraft and land based missile torpedoes.
The PRC likely has built up its own "IUSS" (weaponised with smart mines and submarines) with many undersea arrays in the open, straits and narrows of the East China and South China seas. The islands the PRC has seized in the South China Sea present excellent platforms for criss-crossing undersea arrays.
Do RAN/JMSDF subs have the endurance to stick it out against
the PLAN? If the balloon went up with the PRC invading Taiwan, would the
RAN/JMSDF hang back, or try to support kicking the PLAN back from their ops in
the Taiwan Strait?
Japan is already better placed in seas south to Taiwan. But again, without US involvement all the allies would hang back because the PRC navy is too powerful in ship numbers, nuclear propulsion, emerging full sized aircraft carriers and long range anti-ship (and maybe sub) missiles.
The picture would become considerably more complex if Russia and North Korea coordinated actions with China. Such as North Korea bombing or invading South Korea and Russia embarking on other territorial objectives in Putin's playbook.
I'm trying to look at it from a non-US perspective. I
appreciate your thoughts and feedback!
4 comments:
Pete I agree with your conclusions. I would add two further reasons in support of them:
China reportedly has installed extensive networks of its own seabed sensors near its islands in the South China Sea, making it a dangerous place for RAN SSKs to operate.
[As as aside the way to circumvent this if RAN had Virginia SSNs is to operate the latter in nearby deep water in the Sulu Sea or east of Phillipines and lob Tomahawks onto PLAN bases from there].
Second for RAN ships there is the question of their magazine depth, the RAN's overall much smaller SAM missile stocks than the USN, and the extensive PLAN SSM batteries that would make PLAN bases in the South China Sea very difficult to approach and impossible to remain near. It would be much harder than remaining near Yemen, which taxed USN Arleigh Burkes carrying twice as many VLS as our Hobarts.
Trump is degrading Singapore's relationship with America by appointing a golf buddy as Ambassador - he's a retired orthopedic surgeon who thinks his Indian heritage will influence his relationship with Singapore's Foreign Minister, who has held ministerial positions for 25 years.
https://youtu.be/sTGajMcI83g?si=Hz_lTo9f8Atsz_d2
Hi Scott at 7/29/2025 11:33 PM
Yes indeed these are important developments and see the latest https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-30/tracking-militarisation-in-the-south-china-sea/105473948
Pete
Thanks Shawn at 7/30/2025 7:17 PM
US Ambassadorial and negotiator (eg. Steve Witkoff) appointments are frequently inept.
I suspect Singapore and Australia are considered "soft posts". Australia often scores types whose claim to appointment comes from political donations to sitting Presidents.
At least the current US Ambassadorship to Australia remains unfilled (since November 2024) with a Chargé d’affaires (a professional diplomat) at the helm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ambassadors_of_the_United_States_to_Australia
Cheers Pete
Post a Comment