Inspired by Anonymous' questions at 1/24/2026 6:01 PM :
The US NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY of January 23, 2026 at https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/2026-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY.PDF written by the US "Department of War" is very America First, saying:
“We [the US] will deter China in the Indo-Pacific
through strength, not confrontation. We will increase burden-sharing with
allies and partners around the world. And we will rebuild the U.S.
defense industrial base as part of the President's once-in-a-century
revival of American industry.”
There are 15 references to NATO in the Strategy, but no
mention of Australia, ANZUS, the QUAD, or even AUKUS. This may mean the US is downgrading age old links and
understandings with Australia. The US seems to be implying US allies, including Australia,
should shoulder more of the burden against China.
You ask "why are we spending most of our budget on small numbers of costly platforms interchangeable with the USN and USAF" Only with Australian nuclear submarines (used Virginias probably sent to us in the mid 2040s) could our navy move safely and quickly enough to patrol and defend seas between China and Australia as well as the Taiwan Strait.
Until we have Virginias Australia will be weak against Chinese naval movements. This is noting China is likely to have one or more Type 093 or new 095 SSNs in front of any taskforce near Australia.
13 comments:
Pete,
Entirely in keeping with the Trumpian America First world view where he's the Leader of the (free) world and every other county has to pay him tribute or buy the toys he sanctions.
Australia also cannot adopt a position where you are subservient to the US for defense - you have been building decades of defense relations with Indonesia and Singapore. Your Pacific defense positon should include greater interoperatability with Japan and South Korea (and Taiwan), with more joint exercises and patrols
Oh, and with apologies to the Phillippines, who are also building up their naval forces, but they really need to build up their experience in operating missile frigates for air, sea and sub-surface warfare.
Hi,
I need some clarification for me. What does that mean: "follow-on aircraft will remain in the USAF’s possession"?
https://breakingdefense.com/2026/01/first-mc-55a-peregrine-surveillance-and-electronic-warfare-jet-arrives-in-australia/
Australia paid for 4 aircraft but the US will keep the 3 out of 4?
Regards,
MHalblaub
Hi Pete,
some news for Type 212CD.
https://www.hartpunkt.de/u-212-cd-norwegisches-parlament-stimmt-fuer-die-beschaffung-von-zwei-weiteren-u-booten-bei-tkms/
Norway ordered on 2026-01-27 two more submarines for 3.9 billion Euros. Due to this order TKMS will set up a second production line in Germany. That may also related to Canadian submarines.
Regards,
MHalblaub
Hi, again.
Moscow will face more problems with oil exports:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-growing-risks-to-maritime-safety/the-growing-risks-to-maritime-safety
We will see if Moscow still has some seamen left to man their boats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Fleet#Order_of_battle
Regards,
MH
Hi Matthias - MHalblaub at 1/27/2026 8:42 PM
At "Breaking Defense" https://breakingdefense.com/2026/01/first-mc-55a-peregrine-surveillance-and-electronic-warfare-jet-arrives-in-australia/ "L3Harris says that follow-on aircraft will remain in the USAF’s possession while supporting Australian training and pre-delivery requirements and the company has established a field service team based in Australia to work alongside local industry partners for in-country support."
seems incorrectly drafted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Royal_Australian_Air_Force_aircraft#Current_aircraft shows
"MC-55A Peregrine Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Electronic Warfare (ISREW) aircraft No. 10 Squadron (RAAF Base Edinburgh)
1 [received] (3 on order)"
Cheers Pete
Hi Shawn
I agree with your 1/26/2026 6:54 PM and 1/26/2026 6:57 PM
All US allies need to reconsider their alliances with a US wrecked by Trump's style and tactics.
Regards Pete
Hi MHalblaub at 1/28/2026 9:36 PM
Six Type 212CDs is a lot for Norway, a small country of 5,601,049. This replaces Norway's six much smaller Ula class subs on a one to one basis.
Also TKMS is building 4 subs for Israel = Drakon + 3 Dakar class. Finishing some for Singapore? 6 for India? Some still for Greece?
Cheers Pete
Hi MH at 1/28/2026 9:51 PM
I thought Trump and Putin were dictator buddies - so interception and legal challenges regarding Russian tankers is a surprise.
Maybe Europe-UK are pressuring Trump to take some action against nemesis to NATO Russia.
Low availability and poor maintenance, especially of Russia Surface ships, are real problems. Also whole surface crews have been reassigned to the Ukraine war in infantry and technical backup positions.
Russia's nuclear subs are in a better crew availability-maintenance position.
While conventional Kilo subs have been casualties in the Black Sea and replacements cannot be reassigned too the Black Sea due to international conventions.
Cheers Pete
Hi,
here another article in German but this time about PRC Navy.
https://www.hartpunkt.de/die-chinesische-marine-im-jahresrueckblick-2025-teil-1-die-ueberwasserflotte/
https://www.hartpunkt.de/die-chinesische-marine-im-jahresrueckblick-2025-teil-2-u-boot-flotte-logistik-forschung-entwicklung/
MH
Thanks MH at 1/29/2026 9:25 PM
I have used https://www.hartpunkt.de/die-chinesische-marine-im-jahresrueckblick-2025-teil-1-die-ueberwasserflotte/ in my latest article: "China's New 004 Nuclear Carriers to be larger than Fords" of February 3, 2026, at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2026/02/chinas-new-004-nuclear-carriers-to-be.html mainly criticism of the Type 003's reliance on conventional propulsion.
Cheers Pete
Pete I have been thinking about the US defense strategy lately. Further to your comment above about conclusions from it for Australia (and other friendly Asian nations - Japan, SK, Phil and Singapore) Australia too should revise its Defense Strategy. The long running question of whether Australia should equip for expeditionary warfare with USA, or adopt a "echidna/ porcupine strategy", should now be modified. The choices seem to be either an echidna strategy, or close interoperability with Asian partners. Paying a cost premium for equipping for close interoperability with US forces seems an unwise investment, if USA is now not guaranteed to show up. We need to plan to survive without USA, in case that is the situation we end up in.
Hi Anonymous at 2/11/2026 4:45 PM
Australia tends to have small strategic solutions to respond to most contingencies (types and problems of warfare).
Current trends are that Australia deploys a company or 2 of special forces (SAS and Commandos with helicopters in support) for expeditionary warfare.
Meanwhile we avoid long range naval forces (like SSNs) that would get Australia ensnared in far off conflicts that are better for us to avoid.
I think we already have the equipment (US Combat systems on the Collins, M1 tanks, Apache helos, F-35s, tomahawks and artillery missiles on order) to interoperate with the US in long range strike and in defence of Australia for the next 2 decades.
Japan, SK, Phil and Singapore have separate alliances with the US and there are many exercises and agreements which involve Australia, US, Japan, SK, Phil and Singapore. These bonds haven't been destroyed by Trump, quite yet.
Cheers Pete
Post a Comment