Australia's National Defence Strategy - New capabilities, but when?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 тра 2024
- Australia has released its National Defence Strategy & Integrated Investment Plan 2024. What does this mean for the future of the ADF in terms of new & enhanced capabilities, & when they will be delivered?
See related briefings:
Australia's New Fighting Force: • Australia's New Fighti...
Australia's Missile Force: • Australia's Missile Fo...
Australia's New Combat Ships: • Australia’s New Combat...
As an ex-serving Aussie, thanks for the clarity of breakdown on this. My thoughts put simply: 6 years is optimistic. I'd put something kicking off in the next 2 years, perhaps earlier, in the South China Sea/Taiwan. We are massively under-prepared for any significant conflict, and the long lead-up time for any new tech acquisitions is going to hurt us. The single biggest problem I see, however, is the appalling state of recruitment and retention, and the notion of Service more broadly. We have just cut the budget to ADF Cadets drastically - a recruitment tool whereby up to 80% of cadets go onto some form of Service - Police, Fire, Rescue, Reserves, Regulars, etc. We can have all of the boondoggles and widgets we want, but if we don't have a crew, it ain't going nowhere.
Personally, I think we will be in a major shooting war, by the end of this decade?
6 years just happens to be 2 elections away, which means labor knows it won't be in office and just like Dan Andrews, albo and wong will probably be living and working in china by then?
IMHO, forget Taiwan. China is not going to let the US sail up to its coast and attack it. If the US foolishly takes the situation beyond the yelling and screaming stage, things will happen mid Pacific
Thanks for the support. Yes recruitment is a huge challenge, hence why they are looking at recruiting non-citizens.
Perhaps a Gurkha battalion to supplement 2nd Div could be a start? 🤔
Would love to see a video on the build-up of domestic production planned in future ( missile and shell production etc)
Ask Putin and Shoigu how it's done!
Are we going to canabilise our washing machines? AFAIK we don't produce any chips in Australia?
My opinions:
1. Immediately transfer the Cape Class and Arafura patrol boats to Border Force Marine Unit with the latter to perform constabulary and coast guard duties.
2. Make the RAN a solely war fighting force with corvettes, frigates and destroyers plus support vessels like LHD and mine layers.
3. Increase the Redback IFV to c.400 as originally planned. We won’t get enough to equip one battalion now.
4. Purchase some conventional diesel electric subs to plug the gap until the AUKUS subs come on line. Good choice is the German 216SG which are special forces compatible.
5. Reintroduce the airborne battalion centred around 3RAR with supporting artillery, engineering and medical assets. We are responsible for a continent. Having an airborne battalion able to deploy anywhere in the region in 24 hours and able to operate independently for up to 72 hours until relieved by the Amphibious Assault Brigade would be a significant deterrent.
6. Equip and train the Reserves to be deployable on one week’s notice to support the Regular Army.
7. Transfer the M113AS4 to the Reserves as these platforms are retired and the Redback comes on line.
The ADF and particularly the RAN have rocks in their heads if they don't massively upgun the LHD's (including both Phalanx and RAM launchers). If it were up to me I still say I would spend the money to purchase about 50 of the F-35 "B" model and modify the LHD's to operate them. Canberra and Adelaide would each have a dozen jump jets in their air wings, with another 12 serving as the training squadron and 14 airframes in reserve for accident and combat attrition replacements. I mean, I kept hearing all through this video about the new emphasis in the ADF on combined arms amphibious power projection. If that doesn't shout "aircraft carrier" I don't know what does. The LHD's still have their Spanish ski jumps and even a dozen F-35s per ship would greatly enhance Australian capabilities while greatly complicating any enemy's planning and response.
Navy Canceled the MQ9 Drones that could have given the LHDs a number of Capabilities they lack.
There is an Aircraft Carrier version under development, with foldable wings for shorter takeoff and landing.
They could act as Eye in the Sky AWACS for the small “Carrier Group”.
Allowing an over the Horizon view for accompanying Air Warfare Ships.
They could also be used to detect, Identify and engage targets with missiles, well away from the Vulnerable LHDs.
The RAAF is quite respectable and fairly large relative to the size of Australia's population and defence budget. The Air Force appears to be the strongest component of the ADF at present.
An excellent and succinct analysis as usual. My comments are not a critique of your presentation, so much as a critique of what we know of the national defence strategy.
Situation - none of our recent scenarios have involved a sustained high level conflict, and they are not useful models for current strategy - WW2 in the Pacific is probably the last example of a relevant event - history never repeats itself, but it does rhyme - The Pacific war was not only 'to our north', but throughout much of the Pacific, notably to maintain a supply route from the USA to Australia (e.g. the Solomons campaign), actions along the Australian west and east coasts (extensive submarine activity), and air / submarine reconnaissance and raids on Australian cities (even Hobart was overflown). Technologies and capabilities have changed, but I contend we should not expect anything less in any similar future conflict.
Sustainment - It is not enough to have a suitable selection of fires - if an adversary is large, well resourced and culturally resilient against losses, its strategy may be to out-last the mutual attrition - local production and storage of munitions is relevant - so is hardening of key sites, and a well conceived and practiced system of dispersion (something like a Swedish model). Haven't seen much about the latter.
Assumptions - We have always relied on 'great and powerful friends' - Historically the USA has at times wavered between isolationism and deep external involvement. There are many there who wish they were not the world's policeman. They are virtually the only country in the world with the skills, resources and internal market to economically isolate themselves from everyone else, and remain affluent. It is also a country regularly convulsed by internal discords that distract them from other events, and take years to resolve. Culturally, Australians love smooth sailing, whereas Americans love stormy seas. It would be unwise to assume they will always be there and ready, to the extent we don't choose to develop our own independent defence capabilities sufficiently.
Geography - Australia is a big place surrounded by a wide moat. That makes large scale invasion more difficult, but intimidation through threatening presence, incursion and raiding easier - Creating a credible ability to rapidly expand local defences provides dilemmas for an adversary relying on attrition of military capacities - We arguably had such a system in the 1930s suited to that time, but not since - It is a relatively cheaper and quicker approach, but being human based (rather than technology based), may be outside current defence paradigms.
Time and People - It is quite conceivable that major conflict could occur before 2030 - Most of the strategic defence items discussed will not be here by then, and even then in not much quantity or depth - In the interim, developing a 'third tier' of defence (differentiated from current Permanents and Reserves) is a cheaper and cheaper initiative - By 'Tier 3' I mean they would be locally defensive (not expeditionary) - recruited from a much wider age and fitness base - not be required to make an extensive commitment to service, or being moved to locations far from family - designed to be attractive to people like tradies, supervisors and medical personnel - use 'off the shelf 'equipment - provide part time pay, meaningful vocational qualifications and local community engagement as incentives - trained in basic military skills, local intelligence and defensive skills, and support to the civilian community - Models include Switzerland, Singapore and (with some modifications) the USA.
Such a 'third tier' could provide the following - a demonstrated and growing capability for larger scale, rapid mobilisation - a place for defence personnel in the 'evening of their careers' to continue to contribute while being close to home - a source of selected recruits for higher level tiers from young people with an appetite to do more, demonstrated levels of interest, and already known aptitudes - Freeing higher tier full-time and reserve formation from being a source of support to communities during natural disasters - Freeing higher tier units from static defensive roles to engage more in expeditionary offensive roles - Naturally it needs some full time support (similar to the role of the AIC within the Australian Army in the 1930s), administration, and some specialised supporting units. It probably also needs a catalyst to be created; something perhaps like the Fujian and an attached task force making a 'good will' cruise through the Coral and Tasman seas.
Thanks for the support and very detailed comment. Self-sufficiency is critical. Australia still has a long way to go.
@@pj_ytmt-123 Thanks - The 'stormy' reference was unintentional.
There is another problem with US reliability: oil.
We know that there are jihadists all over the ME, who look forward to the coming of their "Mahdi".
Now that the west has severed ties to russian oil, if the Arab League decided it's Armageddon tomorrow and cut oil supplies to the US and its allies, then the US military will be in BIG TROUBLE.
Hypothetically they could even blow up their own oil wells like Saddam Hussein did. So if you guys know somebody who knows somebody, pass it on.
Oh censored. The progressive/inclusive disease is running rampant in Australia, I see. Goodbye!
@@tacitdionysus3220 I deleted my previous reply because this channel doesn't deserve even a nod. 👎
Im an Aussie 25 yr in vet and that was a great brief and lays it all out no BS and gabe the information i was actually having trouble keeping up to daye with. Great job mate appreciated
Thanks, much appreciated.
Lots of announcements!
I’ll believe it when I see it!
With most unfunded, and given the timeline, much can happen (or more importantly not happen).
@@Strategy_Analysis exactly! The problem is, when the Sh*t hits the fan, we will have to go with what we’ve got!
And it won’t be enough?
@@user-sj5lq8uz5j Correct. There is very little that will present this decade. If the threat were real this plan would be the furthest thing from what they delivered.
Peace.
Yep! Most of them have announced about 6 times now!
If Labor cop out on these announcements they would lose all credibility with majority of voters--"for all time"-so they just cant afford to
Outstanding briefing / presentation
25 million people land the size of mainland USA force projection needs to be the focus.
We cant defend what we have we need to prevent attacks and to do so effectively we need Nuclear Strike capability. Anything less is just playing Army.
Well done! Thanks for keeping us updated.
Thank you. Much appreciated.
While this does look underfunded right now it is worth considering that funding for programs doesn't usually come in a single block and instead delivered through successive allotments of funding over years>
Adopting a system similar to the US one where we provide greater support to prospective recruits is a good one for improving recruitment rates and retention.
Otherwise everything is moving in the right direction, it's just a matter of whether or not we'll get it done fast enough. Recent years we've made good efforts on domestic production and a lot of the DSR was saying "We're doing the right things but we need to move faster."
Suggestion for a future video? Maybe one on the prospects of an Australian Fixed-wing carrier? That idea gets bandied around from time to time.
This will be a good one!
Keep up the good work! Thanks for the reply and best wishes.
Good coverage. My guess is that the ADF needs to ramp up now! With the rise of China and the BRICS economic partnership producing a bipolar trade order coupled with the trend for de-dollarization of the US currency as the default system of trade, Australia does not have 6 years to up arm and forget about anything after 2032. Moreover, any decline in the US dollar would mean Australia's holdings of US bonds would have less equity and value - Australia loses out (again) while propping up the US. My opinion is to off-load some of the US bonds now to pay for some immediate ADF requirements. One positive mentioned was the need to recruit from partner nations and I would include Japan, South Korea and India into that mix to enhance inter-services capabilities.
Personally, I believe the whole Aukus deal to be faulty and not in Australia's best economic and strategic interests. Firstly it is excessively expensive and the any leased SSN's from the US would be recalled if the US gets involved in a conflict with China or Russia - leaving Australia vulnerable. Secondly, China is one of Australia's top trading partners and any potential conflict or trade sanctions against China would be economically devastating especially if China decides to ban Australian imports. It would send Australia into a recession or worse. From my perspective, Australia needs to cut its losses with the whole Type 26 debacle and the whole Aukus deal. Aukus is history repeating itself when it was first muted that Australia could store nuclear waste back in the 80's and when the UK promised information sharing when it used Australia as a test bed for its nuclear explosions - Maralinga in SA and the Monte Bello islands off the WA coast. There are enough nuclear capabilities to destroy the world 20x over and Australia and the Australian government needs to grow some balls and step away from this kind of mindset and US military brinkmanship.
My suggestions (if they carry any weight at all or if anyone takes the time to consider them) include, but not limited to;
1). A land based rocket force for long range area denial (Himars are limited in scope and range) to include up to 24 or more South Korean Hyunmoo-3 missiles and transporters with reload facilities. The 3C and 3D cruise missiles have a range of 1500 and 3,000 km respectively plus 24 or more of the heavy hitter and heavier Agni-II non-nuclear versions from India. These have a range of 2,000-3,500 km. Both could be stationed at or near the the airbases at RAAF Curtin and RAAF Sherger to protect approaches to Australia's North. It would also mean that these bases get the necessary upgrades to make them functional secondary bases as well as reducing the risks to other key ADF facilities.
2). For tier 3, 6+6 Sigma 9113 Light corvettes to be used as a replacement for the original order of the Arafura class OPV's - the 9113's are 50 tonnes heavier than the Arafura at 1,692 tonnes, are a proven off-the-shelf design and have greater offensive, defensive and survivability than the Arafura class. I equate the Arafura as like taking a knife to a gun fight.
3). For Tier 2, 3+3 MEKO A-200 frigates based on their range and offensive and defensive capabilities or, for construction speed and fast delivery the Daegu class or Chungnam class frigates from South Korea.
Potentially, the 6 Sigma 9113 vessels and 3 MEKO A-200 could all be built jointly in Australia and in their respective countries by the end of 2030 thus fulfilling the need to 'plug' the goldilocks gap and giving the RAN a much needed boost in maritime capability.
To me the suggested rocket force is a no-brainer. It supplements both areal and surface forces
However, given the federal governments abysmal performance over the past decade, I have no doubt that they will sit and their hands and lack the necessary fortitude to get things done.
Thanks for the support and comment. Who knows what the world will look like in 2030? Not much time to introduce new capabilities.
We need long range air defence (Patriot) to create an effective multi-layered system. We cannot assume air assets will be available or able to deny missile strikes on critical domestic assets
Why buy useless overpriced crap! What about S-400/S-500??!!
Have you heard of air 6500
Also need a cheap air defence for cheap drones. It's a waste to use a million dollar missile on a $1000 drone.
@andrewjarvis1242 a 12 gauge Shotgun??!!. Also wondering if any CAC Boomerangs around? You don't use a Mach3 Fighter Jet to shoot down a 150mph Drone. Perhaps if we repair our relationship with Russia they will sell us some Jammers?
Another brilliant briefing mate! And the closing comments highly accurate, the threat is within the next 5 years and we won’t have the required capability. Defence planners and their political masters have failed to realise this for decades!
Army will have a combined arms mech brigade and two other brigades - 1st which will have one battalion (5/7), no armour and artillery? 7th will hopefully be motorised with wheeled fleet and hopefully we will keep the ASLAVs and upgrade them (handy because the Kiwis have trained on LAV 6’s) Townsville will get the priority for people (just like the old ODF days), 7th will reflect the old 6th brigade prior to ready reserve & 1st brigade will really be a reenforced battalion! Navy will be able to transport stuff but won’t be able to protect it and the airforce will be impressive - until the fuel and. munitions run out! Those northern bases particularly Townsville and Curtin can only be resupplied by road or air from southern Australia (Townsville could be resupplied by rail if it is cross docked from standard gauge) As for our partners, some will have their own problems & some maybe more of a threat than an ally. So all in all we are in for some interesting times!
Threat? From Whom??!!
@@COLINJELY well supposedly China. But that’s only to justify spending.
@@COLINJELY Have you been living under a rock?
Never replacing the F-111 is Australia's biggest blunder .2 squadrons of B-21 Raiders along with Nuclear subs and 2 aircraft carriers to project force and long range strike capability
Well done captain, hope your well
We're not going to be able to manufacture new fighters here but we sure as hell should be making as many consumables as possible.
We should urgently create production lines( licensed from USA) for AMRAAMs and AIM9X IIR missiles/ countermeasures flares/chaff which would soon run short in high intensity combat.
Long range tanks, available in numbers, for our F-18s and F-35 squadrons...anything that will be used fast in battle should be on the list of urgent requirements for the Air Force.
And more tankers...
10 Ghost Bats seems pretty light on, given the development costs.
Certainly could be more by 2030, but at this stage only 10. I do expect that number to grow though.
The Ghost Bat is still in development and a long way from being ready for operations, a lot of work to be done yet before they will settle on the final product and start ordering in any real numbers.
The fundamental floor in this arguement is the complete dependance on a potentially unreliable Allie. We should aim to be self dependant, and then hope others come to our aid in time of crisis. And not, we totally rely on others, and we will do our little bit to help them if asked. As worst case should be primarily for planning, and then minor teaks to help others. Because we dont have the oil assests necessary to guarantee anyone coming to our aid.
So the situation hasn't changed since I joined the ADF back in the 80's.
The top brass are still predicting that Australia will be invaded, and still saying that the ADF is under budgeted and undermanned. I agree with the second statement, but the first is just nonsense.
Is there any recent information on the post DSR Brigade structures/orbat? Anyone know vehicle allocations etc.
I'll be doing a briefing on it. Just need a little more information first. Stay tuned.
looking at eastern europe at present there seems to be a large turnover of men and machinery. so in a war environment (that im assuming will involve conscription), what are the extra formations going to do? do we have any spare anything for them? even small arms? it sort of seems our strategy is to just have enough to last us until the cavalry arrives.
anyway love your work
Thanks, much appreciated. Yes, even if you have the troops, will you have the equipment? Not Australia as is planned. Not will it have the troops, given recruitment issues.
Indonesia :
plane already, tanks already, drones already, missiles already. the frigate is full, now we continue to build destroyers and submarines.
I will be covering Indonesia.
@@Strategy_Analysis
natural resources right?
@@user-fj3qm6jp8s Only part of it. Indonesia is far more important than just that. Mengerti?
I will try to give it a chance, defences biggest problem is always the na sayers mostly old bastards fighting old wars that aren’t relevant to the current or future situation. I don’t fell any political party owns this space both have screwed the pooch too many times. Both major parties should agree that they would support each other when it comes to the military and a committee made up of both parties would work on the Department Defence and treat it as no go area for political point scoring. That’s what the military should lobby for it couldn’t be any worse than what we have had.
I would like to see a video about drones for all services in all areas of operation in particularly the dangerous and dull ie mine detection, base security and logistics.
Also the automation of systems to reduce personal requirements to help with current personal shortages. The K9 with auto loaders, driverless trucks, smaller tanks the AS21s with 120mm guns and 3 person crews. If Japanese frigates can have 90 people in crews could that technology not be transferred into the exisiting fleet in part at least. Is there not a chance to look at how the commercial world makes this work at times.
Drones, and increased automation, are something that I will cover in the future.
Brilliant as usual !!
Thanks, much appreciated.
You do note that we had a chance of having 3 fully equipped battle groups to one....
And somehow that improves our defence ability.
We are relying on holding off an enemy from our shore instead of being able to defend that land if we are invaded.
That is not a balanced defence.
We are gambling on long distance defence instead of a balanced defence in depth.
Gday mate,can I ask,are we going to take over the build of our howitzers on Aussie soil,after the contracts done with south Korea,like Poland will,thanks for the awesome videos chief,stay safe,cool
Thanks, mate. Much appreciated. Do you mean will Australia keep producing the AS9 Huntsman after Australia's order is complete for overseas orders? As I understand it part of the deal is for Australia to become part of the supply chain for them.
And Ukraine has shown how assets need active protection against should fired missiles and FPV’s. How will be give landing craft their own layer of protection?
I'd like the ADF to create a Gurkha Regiment, just like the UK has had for years. 🇦🇺
Could happen with the new approach to recruitment.
@@Strategy_Analysis nah, they'll do something daft like a diversity and inclusion Regiment or some woke crap 😂🇦🇺
Choules will eventually be disposed of with no replacement because sea 2200 cancelled
I was looking for that proposed capability, but didn't see it.
The capability looks like it is being replaced by the 8 LMV-H LSTs the Army is getting.
nice briefing, when will you be doing a in depth analysis on the NDSII plan? ie "conflict with peer or near peer" is that meaning aussie or usa peer? us congress reduced their order for submarines, how does that effect our ssn deliveries? ukraine war shown us drastic changes in war fighting (drones on sea, land and air), also the devastating effect of attritional warfare on equipment, production capacity of a country and human death toll, is our proposed purchases out dated? imho we will never see a peer on peer war, why because that would mean MAD. what we will see is more ukraine style wars where vassal states are used to batter the enemy. if i am right will that mean the aussie gov has got its purchasing fit for purpose?
There's SO MANY aspects of what Marles, Houston and Smith put together - but firstly let's never ever forget both Smith/Houston were responsible for DoD Budget Outlays being shredded to 1938 levels, yet they're hired to assess our strategic environment? DoD/Russell is the most dysfunctional, inept and appalling Department APS wide, the culture of dysfunction is, and will remain forever in place. Not replacing Choules is insane, the lack of urgency to acquire new kit also insane. I have more confidence in the junior Minister than Marles, who's again being schooled by Russell's hacks, splitting his time between Deputy PM and MinDef. Russell have again hit the jackpot, a MinDef totally out of his depth, and detached from the strategic dynamics.
I think Japan is part of AUKUS now
“Show me the Money”
How can we have THREE combat brigades when we have only enough armoured vehicle on order for ONE?
That is one tiger and two paper tigers.
Brilliant.
The Army has changed from having 3 similar brigades to 3 very different manoeuvre brigades, only one of which will be armoured.
Interesting no 2xJSS nor no UAV helicopters, frigates will have be built overseas to meet time line. Although RAN should order block 2 of more Hobart destroyers. As for rest defence everything seem ok although more Redbacks should be order.
We couldn't beat eggs.
Instead of the eleven light frigates why not get eight of the Navantia F-110 frigates and three of the flight three destroyers that was showcased last year at the naval symposium.
Where will the personnel to man them come from?
Why adopt such high cost slow, vulnerable targets?
Joint to integrated sounds like an excuse for budget cuts.
Lot of AI drones in development,, also Ghost Shark we have 6 already. mot sure on no optionally crewed vessels since we are testing AI converted Arafura class patrol boat now. government funded it also.
The RAAF needs a genuine pure fighter force with either the NGAD or tempest aircraft
mq-25 paired with f35 will likely fill that roll well
MiG 35/Su57
F15 ex, plus more Wegtails and tankers plus...in country missile and munitions manufacture and deep and diversified stores of all critical fuels, lubricants and spares.
@@COLINJELY Australia buy Russian military equipment 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣We ain't that dumb.
@@Harldin we should be buying the best equipment at the best price
The government should return the money they are taking short term to pay for all those none productive whingers to speed up the process, including a second Armoured Brigade so as to have some tactical depth and introduce the F35b, uo gun the LHDs to be able too defend themselves. Especially if they are looking to become a serious experditionary manoeuvre force in the Indo-Pacific region.
It is time to take the bull by the horns. The Imperative for an Australian Nuclear Deterrent in the Face of China's Existential Threat.
Australia's strategic security landscape is increasingly fraught with challenges that pose an existential threat to its sovereignty. Foremost among these is China's rising military might, whose expansionist policies and aggressive posturing in the Indo-Pacific region have raised alarms about Australia's future stability and security. Given the current state of Australia's defence capabilities, the acquisition of nuclear weapons emerges as a crucial strategy to deter potential aggression and ensure national survival.
Strategic Vulnerabilities and Defense Shortcomings: - Australia boasts a vast and sparsely populated coastline stretching over 25,000 kilometres, presenting a formidable challenge for defence and surveillance. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is under-equipped to secure this extensive border against a superior military force like China.
Key shortcomings include:
1. Insufficient Defense Expenditure: Australia's defence budget, while significant, is spread thin across multiple domains, resulting in a lack of advanced and comprehensive land, sea, and air deterrents. The current expenditure levels are inadequate to match the rapid military advancements seen in China.
2. Manpower Constraints: The ADF is experiencing its lowest manpower levels since World War II. This limited personnel pool hampers Australia's ability to project power and sustain prolonged defensive operations, particularly against a numerically superior foe. This is evidenced by the new Australian Foreign Legion forecast to boost recruit numbers.
3. Technological and Capability Gaps: The ADF lacks the advanced technological edge and integrated defence systems to effectively counter modern threats. This includes deficits in missile defence, cyber capabilities, and strategic mobility. The Case for a Nuclear Deterrent. In the face of these challenges, nuclear weapons offer a potent solution that can offset conventional military disadvantages and provide a credible deterrent against existential threats.
The strategic rationale for Australia to pursue nuclear armament includes:
1. Deterrence Against Superior Forces: Nuclear weapons serve as a powerful deterrent, compelling any potential aggressor to reconsider the risks of a military incursion. The mere presence of a credible nuclear arsenal can induce hesitation and strategic caution in adversaries, including China.
2. Force Multiplier: A nuclear capability would act as a force multiplier, significantly enhancing Australia’s defensive posture without needing proportional increases in conventional forces. This would enable Australia to maintain a more balanced and sustainable defence budget.
3. Sovereignty and Autonomy: Possessing nuclear weapons would enhance Australia’s strategic autonomy, reducing dependence on allied support in times of crisis and enabling more decisive and independent defence policies.
4. Geopolitical Stability: A nuclear-armed Australia would contribute to regional stability by establishing a balance of power. This could deter China's direct aggression, coercive tactics, and geopolitical maneuvering.
Conclusion.
In a rapidly evolving security environment, the acquisition of nuclear weapons presents a compelling strategic imperative for Australia. Faced with China's overwhelming military superiority and constrained by current defence capabilities, Australia must consider a nuclear deterrent to secure its sovereignty, safeguard its vast coastline, and ensure national survival. By developing a credible nuclear arsenal, Australia can transform its strategic landscape, compelling any potential aggressor to think twice before undertaking any kinetic actions against the nation. Australia needs to grow up.
As I think most would agree the f35, triton, agm 158 LRASM combination is an extremely potent one but can anyone who actually knows what they are talking about tell me how vulnerable they are while at raaf bases. As they are so powerful should they be store in bunkers and if you do not know what a triton or agm is please do not comment as that means you have no idea of what you are talking about.
Australia should replace the 24 - F-18F with the F-15-EX which has far better capabilities.
There seems to no clear bang for the buck and more importantly how much bang per defence person...? PLUS no seeming thought to diversification of critical defence resources and platforms. PLUS no clear approach to provide overwhelming force concentration over vast and unpredictable geographic points where enemy attacks plural may occur. A vast area to defend with a small force...HOW? With WHAT??😮😮
Sobering analysis
Australia's National Defence Strategy - New capabilities, but when? On the 12th of never.
As an outsider it is hard to see the threat to Australia or what they would have to gain getting directly involved in a Taiwan scenario. Closest distance between Hainan island and the Northern territory is 4000 km with a gazillion Indonesian islands in between. The only way China gets a foothold on Australian soil is by first Occupying Indonesia or Papa new guinea and build up forces and infrastructure there before attempting an invasion, all of this would be completely impossible if the U.S intervenes.
WTF would China even consider a scenario like that? We are a large trading partner. BTW, where has China ever invaded a foreign country apart from a short war with Vietnam? Unlike another major power (no longer great) that takes great delight in starting forever wars
Boat people land on Australia all the time.
In the modern day, it makes absolutely no sense they have to invade the islands between first.
This is 2024, not 1940.
Lets be clear Australia isnt planning on resisting invasion. No one can invade it and that is not what Australia plans its defence around. As for Taiwan, Australia gains nothing by letting a peaceful, democratic island be invaded by its expansionist neighbour. Australia isnt planning on getting involved in any war its planning on stopping a war from happening at all through deterrence.
Comments are being deleted. Why?
It is too little, too late, our overall defence spending, should be yearly 5% of GNP minimum and if necessary up that to 10%. A major conflict is coming and we are not going to be ready as it is, we do not have 10 years.
It's actually even less, too late. They've cut out any capability that would have helped in the near future - Infantry Fighting Vehicles, Artillery, F35s.
The best Defence strategy is to remind the Nationalist in Formosa they lost the war. Excellent presentation. !! thank you
Thank you, appreciated.
When labor came to office 2 year ago Australia had 48 ships in its navy today we have 32 and albo just announced another will be decommissioned later this year, that should tell you all you need to know?
What the hell does albo have to do with that. Changes that great within the RAN take years to manifest. Leading to that it originated from when the libs were in. Remember they themselves
wasted billions on three separate submarine programs. Effecting readiness of our submarine force for decades to come
There are many problems and issues with the new National Defence Strategy (NDS). My personal view of these in order of importance is:
1. The NDS strategy defines an "area of interest" that is more in line with our role as the South Pacific deputy sheriff for the United States. The NDS is much too reliant on an ongoing relationship with the US. Any sensible analysis of US politics would highlight the problems of such a relationship particularly if the Republican Party is in power over the next few years. We need to look for alternative relationships. A NATO like arrangement with ASEAN states where each member has primary responsibility for their homeland and the seaways adjacent to them. This would considerably reduce the area of interest for Australia from that shown in your opening maps.
2. Submarines - AUKUS will never happen! It's too expensive, too aggressive and too difficult for a country the size of Australia to maintain. Two minor issues: where are we going to get the personnel to man 3 Virginia class subs, 8 AUKUS class subs and keep the 6 Collins class subs going? Just 🐂💩! and where are we going to handle the nuclear fuel (loading, unloading and long-term storage)? Again, just 🐂💩.
The Navy ought to be looking at what many other navies are doing, move to smaller sized frigates and corvettes and increase the number of submarines. If we were to acquire the german submarine we could have 12-15 of them for ¼ the price of AUKUS.
The Army plans look Ok except for all this littoral guff. The Army's primary area of operation should be the Australian mainland. Look at Ukraine, where are all the cheap versatile drones?
The Air Force lacks any real long-range strike capability. The F-35 has been a disaster but given the 70+ we have it's too late to change; we need to keep them for close defence. The FA-18s have been a great acquisition and perhaps we should look at getting more of these. We really need to look for a longer range fighter/bomber type aircraft. For the foreseeable future more long-range aircraft like the MQ-4C Triton should be acquired.
Politics and diplomacy ought to be our primary defence strategy. For a country/economy the size of Australia it is just plain stupidity to think we can compete against the likes of China or any of the other major powers of our region (New Zealand excluded 😆🤨😑😬).
Sorry to be a bit long-winded but we are being badly served by our current defence establishment and their political masters.
Keep up the good work, I enjoy your videos.
Thanks for the support. Greatly appreciated.
You're going to find a replacement for the USA eh? Just like that.
The Asians are not going to die defending Australia. It’s absurd to place our survival at their discretion.
This strategy appears be driven by your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We aren’t operating Collins and SSNs together, the diesels are being phased out. As further getting more diesels, the Germans and others make submarines that are effective over the vast distances our boats need to travel.
@@innocentbystander8038 TTHAT'S THE POINT! We don't want anybody to replace the USA! Isn't it about time we stood on our own two feet, lots of other smaller countries do. And as for getting back into bead with the UK; somebody is having a lend of us!
Australians have an inferiority complex; we don't believe we can do it alone, we need a "protector".
I grant that the USA was a very significant partner during WWII, the USA of the 1940's IS NOT the USA of today. We have more than paid our dues for WWI. It's time we did our own thing. WE could become the Switzerland or the Sweden of the South Pacific/South East Asia. Diplomacy will protect us from the Murdoch Press perceived threats.
It is to little to late , solution = U.S base's in Australia , subsidised by Aus gov
No way, we need to kick the US out, they have already invaded us.
Labor has done nothing and will do nothing
The libs wasted time fighting amongst themselves over THREE separate submarine programs and wasted an entire decade and billions of dollars
WTF are we having anything to do with NATO? Just where/against whom are we planning on deploying this force in the next 10-20 yrs? A certain well known Country has boasted of its capability to interdict Chinese Trade through the Malacca Straits. A lot of the countries in this area do a lot of their trade with China, and may not look kindly on it being interdicted. Has this plan taken into account the lessons learned in the conflict in Ukraine?
I watch your show often, and even though I can only understand part of it through subtitles, I still respect your work. But I have a question. Can you explain it?
I don’t know what Australians think. China and Australia are very far apart. Why do you have to interfere in matters between mainland China and Taiwan? ?
Anyone who understands China's history and has relatively fair values can figure out that this is China's civil war. Why must Australia follow the United States and interfere in the Taiwan Strait? ? Is the Australians the American Shepherd? ?
Everyone is equal, and countries should also be equal. (2:05) Why can Americans set up the first island chain and the second island chain to restrict China? ? Who gave Americans their rights? ? God or American military supremacy? ? Where are the freedom, rule of law, and justice that the Western world talks about now? ?
Thank you for the comment. Note, I make objective intelligence assessments. I am not saying something is good or bad, right or wrong. Just the facts and an assessment of them. 明白了吗
Hows the weather in Beijing?
I believe Australia should become a neutral country and have land based nuclear ICBM's on Christmas island. . Tasmanian and interior desert locations maybe something like the LGM-35A Sentinel ICBM or maybe something purchased from another nation ..
deterrent is what we need not projected aggressive capabilities we are an island nation not in Europe or high density Asia ...
Is this Labors Plan lol if so protect yourself.......
Lot was LNP plan before voted out and Labor been cutting a lot of it..
LIBS pretty s%^t at this stuff too buddy. Major defence projects take years to come online. Thats the problem defence should be bi-partisan, not the s$%tshow our parties make it out to be. Did you forget about, Submarine s$%tshow, (that was 3 LIb PMs). Hunter Class Frigate program, NH90, Tigers etc.
So the situation hasn't changed since I joined the ADF back in the 80's.
The top brass are still predicting that Australia will be invaded, and still saying that the ADF is under budgeted and undermanned. I agree with the second statement, but the first is just nonsense.