I'm seeing articles criticizing Aussie's overreaction, which is amusing to me.
They are also calling for more spending on defense. But tbh, would increased defense spending even make a fundamental change? To go from 4 ships in the Aussie navy to 8 ships?
You may be thinking of New Zealand. RAN has three
Hobart-class destroyers and seven
ANZAC-class frigates in service, ten surface combatants in total.
The current plan is to double that inventory over time, retaining the
Hobart-class destroyers and adding six
Hunter-class frigates (derived from British Type 26) and eleven Tier 2 frigates derived from either the Germany Meko A-200 or Japanese
Mogami designs, the selection due by the end of the year, or perhaps early next year, depending on who is talking.
On the submarine side the plan is to put our six
Collins-class SSKs through a life-extension program beginning next year, while acquiring three
Virginia-class SSNs from the US in early-mid 2030s, and eventually building SSNs of a British design here to replace both the
Collins and
Virginia-class boats.
If realised, that would be a formidable inventory indeed for a nation of Australia's size.
If realised. Beyond the formidable budgetary and industrial challenges of acquiring and building all this stuff, the personnel profile required to operate and sustain an inventory of this size looms as the greatest obstacle to be overcome. That fewer crew are required to operate the British SSN(R) compared to the
Virginia-class submarines was likely a meaningful factor in selecting the former for the long-term "build it here" component of AUKUS, so there is evidently some level of awareness about the challenges ahead. But the greater part of those challenges lie beyond the immediate political horizon and are thus safely filed under Somebody Else's Problem.
