AUKUS

[CD Xbow]

Yesterday's announcement news has ushered in a wave of excited chatter regarding our defence future. But this article suggests there may be cause for concern – and a renewed sense of urgency.

Progress in detection tech could render submarines useless by the 2050s. What does it mean for the AUKUS pact?

The first AUKUS-class submarine will be delivered in the 2040s. We may only get about a decade of use before adversaries can easily detect the new boats.

theconversation.com

Their assessment predicts that detection technologies may become so advanced by the 2050s, the oceans could become “transparent”. In other words, it will be increasingly viable to detect submarines, whether by measuring disturbances in the physical, chemical and biological signature of the water they pass through, or by detecting any radiation they emit.

If this technological future arrives, it won’t matter how state-of-the-art our underwater defences are – adversaries will be able to sniff them out. And if it happens by the 2050s, as the authors predict, Australia’s new fleet might squeeze in about a decade of use before it starts to fade into obsolescence.

Yes, this is a concern. It's likely to affect the upper ocean, Lidar is the most likely candidate. Lidar mapping from surface craft and aircraft goes down to a few hundred meters in good conditions. If Lidar makes the upper oceans transparent, all submarines will be affected, but nuclear submarines would be much less affected because they can stay deep much, much longer. Conventional boats would have to traverse the now transparent upper ocean every week or so. Same applies to technologies to detect snorkels. Most of the other tech you refer to is more theoretical and it takes a while for them to be developed, if ever. I'm sure the clever folks involved have taken these potential developments in to consideration. In any case, subs are much more likely to be survivable against a peer opponent through the rest of the century than surface craft.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

It was a pretty standard procedure, a week of planted stories about what danger we're in from interest groups (well they would say that, wouldn't they!), then a massive announcement and bi-partisan support.

Submarines makes total sense for our defence. We could never have a surface force capable of defending our vast coastline (air, surface ocean or land), so a force where the potential enemy has to wonder where it is is the best deterrent. Our immediate neighbours, especially the growing ones like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore as well as further such as Vietnam and Cambodia have much more to fear from China than us and are also leaning on US-led alliances to protect them. I think our submarine capacity should be matched by increased drones (sub-sea and air) and missile technology

Over time, these SE Asian nations will be economically larger (combined) than China which is about to go through some stuff thanks to some demographics. I'm actually more worried about China invading a country like Laos or Cambodia to replace their ageing population than somewhere like Taiwan which is more of an historic annoyance.

Chinese manufacturing is already more expensive than Mexico and Thailand so China may have already peaked and the next 20 years might see an economic decline relative to SE Asia.

There is just on flaw in your summary

China has showed no signs of military expansionism (agree they have done so economically)

The USA on the other hand.....

 

[Taylor]

China has showed no signs of military expansionism (agree they have done so economically)

Building military bases on newly built islands on top of shallow reefs and atolls doesn't count?

Or is this a "but what has he done for me late-ly" sort of thing?

 

[Saint]

There is just on flaw in your summary

China has showed no signs of military expansionism (agree they have done so economically)

The USA on the other hand.....

South China Sea, Taiwan, Tibet.

Short memory for you, BJ?

The Spratley islands are closer to Borneo than China, but China built airbases on them.

 

[kranky al]

Next door neighbours.

Next door neighbours.

If not next door neighbours, within the same sphere of influence.

Living in the same house, to the point they share a ******* toothbrush.

Next. Door. Neighbours.

NDN.

A lot of those examples existed pre-neoliberalism, though. Neoliberalism - for all that the trickledown's a lie - forced countries to specialise, and when you specialise you come to rely on the cheaper goods that other countries specialise in. If you go to war with someone who supplies most of your manufacturing, you're crippled; if you go to war with someone who supplies your iron or your food, you're struggling to build s**t, resupply, and eat.

It's world peace by virtue of just in time supply.

The only example you've really posed in here in which proximity - and thus, competition - wasn't a factor was Britain/China, and Britain had sufficient interests in India to put them... next door.

China are in another hemisphere. They have Japan on their immediate flank, India on the other, and Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand to their south. They would - to get to Australia - have to sail their entire invasion force past our key strategic ally's naval bases in the Pacific; we have American bases on Australian soil. We are their biggest trading partner, and - to an extent - they rely on our quality standards to avoid having to regulate their own production lines.

China's not going to war with us. With India, with Taiwan (and thus, America) but not with us. The only way it happens is if we do something really ******* stupid; as in, stupider than the Morrison-Dutton show.

That’s all nice but it still illustrates that having someone as a trading partner does zero towards stopping them from going to war. The issue that people think will stop the war is economic damage. Going to war with your main trading partner causes massive economic damage, that should give leaders pause…. Yet it doesnt.

Oh and if japan and the us are next door neighbours so are we and china

 

[kranky al]

There is just on flaw in your summary

China has showed no signs of military expansionism (agree they have done so economically)

The USA on the other hand.....

Tibet waves and says hi.

They invaded vietnam. Theyve had multiple border skirmishes with india, they invaded in Korea, border conflicts with the soviet union, they are state sponsoring massive hacking campaigns which is hardly the actions of a good global neighbour.

AND - they are building multiple carrier groups with troopships.

Theres a reason labour and liberal are united on this.

 

[Festerz]

From the introduction of the report the article is discussing:

At the end of it all, a prediction is - at best - an educated guess. There is no reason to presuppose that nondetection tech will not advance at the same rate detection tech does.

You might well be right. I don't pretend to know either way.

Again, my concern is for much greater public transparency (obviously within national security parameters) around all the issues underpinning such a monumental shift in our strategic defence policy and public expenditure priorities for the next 30-50 years.

 

[Festerz]

Theres a reason labour and liberal are united on this.

Quite right. And political gain would be the number one reason, regardless of the merits of the particular decision.

Flag waving and military posturing has always been a vote winner.

When both major political parties agree on a decision without any opposition or public/parliamentary debate there is (imho) even a greater need for independent scrutiny of the decision.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Building military bases on newly built islands on top of shallow reefs and atolls doesn't count?

Or is this a "but what has he done for me late-ly" sort of thing?

Yes China does have one

Now how about the US

(What did you name your Turtle?)

 

[Baltimore Jack]

South China Sea, Taiwan, Tibet.

Short memory for you, BJ?

The Spratley islands are closer to Borneo than China, but China built airbases on them.

For every one incursion by China since WWII, I can name 10 by the USA

I wonder if you realise we are America's next Ukraine, the new proxy war against China....is us

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Tibet waves and says hi.

They invaded vietnam. Theyve had multiple border skirmishes with india, they invaded in Korea, border conflicts with the soviet union, they are state sponsoring massive hacking campaigns which is hardly the actions of a good global neighbour.

AND - they are building multiple carrier groups with troopships.

Theres a reason labour and liberal are united on this.

Indeed there is, its $

 

[Saint]

For every one incursion by China since WWII, I can name 10 by the USA

I wonder if you realise we are America's next Ukraine, the new proxy war against China....is us

How many which the USA is still occupying or threatening to occupy? Or the purpose was to take the land and remove the people?

Tibet and Xinjang is straight out ethnic cleansing with Han CHinese being imported to become the predominant ethnic group, Russian style.

 

[kranky al]

Next door neighbours.

Next door neighbours.

If not next door neighbours, within the same sphere of influence.

Living in the same house, to the point they share a ******* toothbrush.

Next. Door. Neighbours.

NDN.

A lot of those examples existed pre-neoliberalism, though. Neoliberalism - for all that the trickledown's a lie - forced countries to specialise, and when you specialise you come to rely on the cheaper goods that other countries specialise in. If you go to war with someone who supplies most of your manufacturing, you're crippled; if you go to war with someone who supplies your iron or your food, you're struggling to build s**t, resupply, and eat.

It's world peace by virtue of just in time supply.

The only example you've really posed in here in which proximity - and thus, competition - wasn't a factor was Britain/China, and Britain had sufficient interests in India to put them... next door.

China are in another hemisphere. They have Japan on their immediate flank, India on the other, and Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand to their south. They would - to get to Australia - have to sail their entire invasion force past our key strategic ally's naval bases in the Pacific; we have American bases on Australian soil. We are their biggest trading partner, and - to an extent - they rely on our quality standards to avoid having to regulate their own production lines.

China's not going to war with us. With India, with Taiwan (and thus, America) but not with us. The only way it happens is if we do something really ******* stupid; as in, stupider than the Morrison-Dutton show.

That’s all nice but it still illustrates that having someone as a trading partner does zero towards stopping them from going to war.

Oh and if japan and the us are next door neighbours so are we and china

Why does Australia have to fight for USA interests in Taiwan?

Why is Australia permanently fighting other nations wars?

because we dont want conscription like the majority of the world have and we dont want to spend 5% of our budget on defence.

That’s what you do when you dont have a big brother.

If you want an example of what happens when you dont have a military that deters invasion or a big brother, see Ukraine.

 

[kranky al]

Quite right. And political gain would be the number one reason, regardless of the merits of the particular decision.

Flag waving and military posturing has always been a vote winner.

Keating cut the defence budget to the bone.

We used to yell bang instead of firing blanks when i was in the reserves.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Keating cut the defence budget to the bone.

We used to yell bang instead of firing blanks when i was in the reserves.

But that is what ARES have always done.......while pretending to play Soldiers

 

[Gethelred]

That’s all nice but it still illustrates that having someone as a trading partner does zero towards stopping them from going to war.

... when there are other issues at play, proximity being one of the most significant ones.

I don't disagree with you that the mere fact of a trading relationship is no impediment to war, but behaving as though the existence of this one is less than an impediment is rather hawkish.

The issue that people think will stop the war is economic damage. Going to war with your main trading partner causes massive economic damage, that should give leaders pause…. Yet it doesnt.

The economic damage comes when/if China invades Taiwan.

Here's how that goes if Australia stays out:

• India immediately enter a defensive blockade of China with America, forming a wall preventing trade.
• Japan starts ramping up their internal war standing, and the US seeks to post further forces out of Japan and their bases in the Pacific.
• all allied forces seek to use economic blockades to bring China to their knees.
• Australia sits 7500 km away, the economy struggling to recover as the Chinese demand for our goods has dropped.

If Australia goes in:

• Australia - within our capacity to do so - supports the American blockade of China.
• We send troops to train, because we always do.
• Our government spends entirely too much money on military hardware, coupled with the same recession as the above scenario.

China choose whether to escalate or deescalate, based upon their opinion of their chances of winning; China's chances of winning depend on not their numbers but the degree to which the US is willing to protect their control over the Pacific.

Deescalation makes more sense, as unlike Russia America's right will look at China and see communists and race rather than Putin and strong man bullshit.

Oh and if japan and the us are next door neighbours so are we and china

... australia is 7470km away from China. There are 5 nations between us and them, and any number of US naval and air bases in the way; that's just the ones we know about.

Japan is 3045km from China. The only impediment between them is South Korea; while there are US bases stationed in both South Korea and Japan, they are still neighbours.

America has naval bases located to curtail Chinese influence over the region, and will act to protect their interests. The Kuomintang - the ruling party of Taiwan - was originally the democratic party of China, and was financially supported by the US. Trying to paint the US as uninvolved or as though they don't have a horse in this race is a bit disingenuous.

It will come down to whether America takes the whole shebang seriously early if the whole thing kicks off, but - again - we're 7470kms away. They'd have to invade us through blockades, and if the war were to get sufficiently hot they'd probably need troops at home as India have been itching to snip portions of that border back.

It's unlikely to the point of incredulity that we're talking about this. Yellow Peril racism is alive and well in Australia it seems.

 

[kranky al]

For every one incursion by China since WWII, I can name 10 by the USA

I wonder if you realise we are America's next Ukraine, the new proxy war against China....is us

Yes but the difference is, China has now become a serious military power with a serious developing expeditionary capability.

Lets have a look at the nations with that capability in history shall we?

Greece
Rome
Portugal
Germany
Japan
France
England
USA


If Chinas ambitions were defence only - she could develop the worlds most impenetrable airspace up to 1000km from her for a fraction if the price of creating multiple Carrier / Amphibious groups.

They could quite literally make their airspace a brick wall. Even force stealth aircraft to use stand off weapons which reduces their carrying capacity to a fraction of direct delivery munitions.


This is what non military people JUST DONT GET.

Xi Jinping sees this as Chinas century. They are building this expeditionary capability because they see the US’ dominance coming to an end and theirs beginning.

Prior to Jinping china, whilst having a massive military, only projected locally.

Now with multiple carrier groups under construction - they are building a capacity to dominate the globe. Just like america did.

Ask libya, iraq, venezuela, iran Grenada, vietnam , etc how that worked out for them.

Ask Australia, when we dared to ask for an enquiry into the origins of covid what the chinese government are going to be like to deal with.

 

[peetoo]

As for how to pay for it. If it’s about trade to China, put a defence levy on those industries.

Australians don’t live there, (northwest) it does nothing to protect us in the east

 

[kranky al]

But that is what ARES have always done.......while pretending to play Soldiers

Tell that to the veterans of the kokoda trail

Tell that to the reservists whove served in the solomons, east timor, afghanistan, iraq.

Between 2004 and 2014, 2,400 Reserve soldiers deployed on operations.

 

[QuietB]

That’s all nice but it still illustrates that having someone as a trading partner does zero towards stopping them from going to war.

Oh and if japan and the us are next door neighbours so are we and china

because we dont want conscription like the majority of the world have and we dont want to spend 5% of our budget on defence.

That’s what you do when you dont have a big brother.

If you want an example of what happens when you dont have a military that deters invasion or a big brother, see Ukraine.

Ukraine is not a comparable example. Russia can drive over the border to Ukraine. And then they can maintain supply lines direct from within their own country. Ukraine is flat and almost entirely unprotected - hence various armies have marched straight over the top of them and Poland for centuries.

That is vastly different to China invading Australia. Somehow China need to land an obscene number of troops from the ocean on the other side of the world and then they have to supply them and then they have to hope like **** none of their hostile neighbours cause trouble back home and that no-one comes to Australia's aid.

It is never going to open. It is too hard and much easier to just buy the stuff you want from Australia.

None of this is about Australia. This is 100% about the USA interests in Taiwan - which are 100% NOT Australia's interests.

Decades ago the USA and the rest of the western world thought that they would cash in on cheap eastern Labour and export pretty much all of their manufacturing to Asia. The USA didn't just send Nike and Apple and their entire rag trade there - none of which is worth fighting for.

But they did chose to set up manufacturing for some of their most advanced and critical tech industries in Taiwan. And that is what the this whole thing is about - protecting the USA tech industry in Taiwan. Which has absolutely nothing to do with Australia - we have zero interests (given we of course only sell rocks and lobsters).

Australia is getting dragged into a conflict and being asked to fund a conflict it does not even have an interest in.

It is a joke.

 

[peetoo]

Yes but the difference is, China has now become a serious military power with a serious developing expeditionary capability.

Lets have a look at the nations with that capability in history shall we?

Greece
Rome
Portugal
Germany
Japan
France
England
USA


If Chinas ambitions were defence only - she could develop the worlds most impenetrable airspace up to 1000km from her for a fraction if the price of creating multiple Carrier / Amphibious groups.

They could quite literally make their airspace a brick wall. Even force stealth aircraft to use stand off weapons which reduces their carrying capacity to a fraction of direct delivery munitions.


This is what non military people JUST DONT GET.

Xi Jinping sees this as Chinas century. They are building this expeditionary capability because they see the US’ dominance coming to an end and theirs beginning.

Prior to Jinping china, whilst having a massive military, only projected locally.

Now with multiple carrier groups under construction - they are building a capacity to dominate the globe. Just like america did.

Ask libya, iraq, venezuela, iran Grenada, vietnam , etc how that worked out for them.

Ask Australia, when we dared to ask for an enquiry into the origins of covid what the chinese government are going to be like to deal with.

It IS chinas century, and we might just be wasting wealth trying to deny that

 

[kranky al]

... when there are other issues at play, proximity being one of the most significant ones.

I don't disagree with you that the mere fact of a trading relationship is no impediment to war, but behaving as though the existence of this one is less than an impediment is rather hawkish.

The economic damage comes when/if China invades Taiwan.

Here's how that goes if Australia stays out:

• India immediately enter a defensive blockade of China with America, forming a wall preventing trade.
• Japan starts ramping up their internal war standing, and the US seeks to post further forces out of Japan and their bases in the Pacific.
• all allied forces seek to use economic blockades to bring China to their knees.
• Australia sits 7500 km away, the economy struggling to recover as the Chinese demand for our goods has dropped.

If Australia goes in:

• Australia - within our capacity to do so - supports the American blockade of China.
• We send troops to train, because we always do.
• Our government spends entirely too much money on military hardware, coupled with the same recession as the above scenario.

China choose whether to escalate or deescalate, based upon their opinion of their chances of winning; China's chances of winning depend on not their numbers but the degree to which the US is willing to protect their control over the Pacific.

Deescalation makes more sense, as unlike Russia America's right will look at China and see communists and race rather than Putin and strong man bullshit.

... australia is 7470km away from China. There are 5 nations between us and them, and any number of US naval and air bases in the way; that's just the ones we know about.

Japan is 3045km from China. The only impediment between them is South Korea; while there are US bases stationed in both South Korea and Japan, they are still neighbours.

America has naval bases located to curtail Chinese influence over the region, and will act to protect their interests. The Kuomintang - the ruling party of Taiwan - was originally the democratic party of China, and was financially supported by the US. Trying to paint the US as uninvolved or as though they don't have a horse in this race is a bit disingenuous.

It will come down to whether America takes the whole shebang seriously early if the whole thing kicks off, but - again - we're 7470kms away. They'd have to invade us through blockades, and if the war were to get sufficiently hot they'd probably need troops at home as India have been itching to snip portions of that border back.

It's unlikely to the point of incredulity that we're talking about this. Yellow Peril racism is alive and well in Australia it seems.

Everything you say depends on rational behaviours.

Asking for rational behaviour from a dictator who has millions locked in concentration camps in case they might be terrorists as well as torturing his own citizens for dissent or being part of a banned religion may be a bit much if history is anything to go by.

Appeasement doesnt work.

Again look at UKRAINE. …. Russia has been chipping away at Europe bit by bit for years as a result if appeasement.

 

[peetoo]

Everything you say depends on rational behaviours.

Asking for rational behaviour from a dictator who has millions locked in concentration camps in case they might be terrorists as well as torturing his own citizens for dissent or being part of a banned religion may be a bit much if history is anything to go by.

Appeasement doesnt work.

Again look at UKRAINE. …. Russia has been chipping away at Europe bit by bit for years as a result if appeasement.

Is it rational to trigger an apparent adversary then ask if they can kindly wait 30 years before taking up th challenge?

An adversary who we’ve also progressively made our major trading partner?

 

[kranky al]

It IS chinas century, and we might just be wasting wealth trying to deny that

Oh so just hope they dont decide to just say for instance tell us how much we will charge for our resources? Or insist that only chinese firms can exploit our resources, then set a price of cost + $1 oer ton.

And if we dont agree, board all ships coming to australia for inspections and reject those that are unsafe or paperwork isnt correct etc etc etc?

Or of course just annex half of WA and just take what they want.


All of this has been done over and over and over throughout the centuries. What in chinas actions this far indicates that their actions in the future will be benign?

Again i will point to their actions when australia asked for an international inquiry to the origins of covid…. A trade war.

They sent businesses all over australia broke because we wanted an inquiry into a disease that killed millions worldwide. That’s who we are dealing with.

 

[kranky al]

Is it rational to trigger an apparent adversary then ask if they can kindly wait 30 years before taking up th challenge?

An adversary who we’ve also progressively made our major trading partner?

No its funking well not.

Im an advocate of walk softly and carry a big stick.

Unfortunately in a democracy we cant just set military spending as a priority without giving reasons why.

Oh and we get the first subs in the 30’s

Our current subs are technologically ahead of chinas, the virginia class retreads are substantially far ahead of Chinas and the new ones will be as well.