Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

For a middle power, Australia has long defined its national interests in very broad terms. It has sent its troops alongside U.S. forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, and over the years its military has participated in operations as far afield as Rwanda, Somalia and Lebanon. Today, Canberra is part of the coalition carrying out airstrikes against Islamic State in Syria.

Its

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, however, demonstrates just how much Australia’s security focus has turned to its own region. Canberra’s worry about rising Chinese power in the Indo-Pacific has sparked a new willingness to fund the defense muscle necessary to play a major regional role. The result is a new opportunity for the United States to work with Australia in order to strengthen the web of regional partnerships that anchor Asian stability.

The new security framework—a “defense white paper,” in Canberra parlance—describes Australia’s strategic environment and communicates its intentions while presenting a blueprint for enhancing national security. A glance at the white paper makes clear that, while a number of concerns preoccupy Australian defense leaders, including Islamist terrorism and fragile states in the South Pacific, it is Chinese behavior that dominates all others.

The white paper notes the importance of the “rules-based order” more than four dozen times, adopting the American-style coded term for discomfort with Beijing’s increasing tendency to flout long-standing principles. It highlights the rising tensions across the East and South China Seas and expresses concern with Chinese land reclamation that have put much of the region on edge.

But the new approach goes beyond well-crafted expressions of concern—it also commits real resources to the effort to deal with them. Canberra has pledged to boost its defense spending to 2 percent of GDP by 2020, and to provide an additional A$30 billion in funding over the next ten years. The new dollars will be devoted largely to maritime power-projection capabilities, including twelve new submarines (the largest-ever Australian defense acquisition program), twelve major surface ships, three air warfare destroyers, anti-submarine warfare capabilities, and maritime intelligence and reconnaissance assets.

Washington should welcome such investments, together with new steps to enhance Australia’s regional security partnerships. Australian officials have pushed to strengthen defense ties with Singapore, Vietnam and the Philippines, and they have served notice that both their freedom of navigation exercises and routine air patrols in the South China Sea will continue. These moves complement America’s own efforts to deepen its engagement and presence in the Pacific.

None of this is lost on China, whose foreign ministry

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“concern and dissatisfaction” with the new strategy. The ministry’s spokeswoman

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, without evident irony, that Beijing seeks an end to the “constant reinforcement of military buildup in the Asia-Pacific.”

That’s unlikely. Australia is far from alone in its concern at China’s rising assertiveness, nor is it unique in its reaction. Most countries in the Indo-Pacific are building more powerful militaries, with an emphasis on maritime and air assets. At the same time, they are establishing deeper security ties with the United States and with each other. The result is an emerging Asian power web that seeks not to contain China, but to constrain its tendency to flout the “rules-based order” that so preoccupies defense planners today.

These countries seek not only a regional balance of power, but also a balance between their growing economic dependence on China and their desire to maintain an independent foreign policy and security profile. The tensions between the two surfaced recently when a Chinese company took a ninety-nine-year lease for the port of Darwin, where U.S. Marines are deployed on rotation.

Australia’s regional activism is good for American efforts to rebalance its own foreign policy toward Asia. The United States should use the opportunity to do a few things of its own. Washington should pull out of sequestration-era defense budgets to boost spending and increase the share of military assets committed to the region.

U.S. defense officials are currently exploring the stationing of long-range bombers in Australia, which would put these aircraft within distance of the South China Sea. They should also explore new trilateral defense exercises with third countries and the possibility of basing U.S. Navy vessels on the western Australia coast. And Washington should work with Canberra to revive quadrilateral cooperation with Japan and India.

Above all, the United States will need to demonstrate—to allies like Australia and competitors like China—that rather than retrenching and retreating from Asia, America is committed to a robust long-term presence there.

In marshaling its resources toward ensuring a peaceful and stable Indo-Pacific, Australia can demonstrate the sort of regional leadership that strengthens American efforts to underwrite the security so necessary in the world’s most vital region. Washington should not let the chance slip by.

Richard Fontaine is president of the Center for a New American Security in Washington, D.C.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

What if China gave the West a dose of its own medicine by embracing the "rules based order" in the same way it has traditionally done? Ya think neocons and liberal imperialists might be upset if someone else employs the "do as we say and not as we do" strategem?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Footnote: the Center for a New American Century is a neoconservative organization that believes in using all instruments of power to "promote democracy" all over the world.

Click to expand...

Japan should protect tech secrets in Aussie submarine bid

TOKYO -- Japan's leading shipbuilders

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

are strongly promoting their technological strengths to Australia in a bid to win contracts to build that country's next generation of submarines. Mitsubishi Heavy said that it is considering building all the vessels in Australia, but hurdles remain, such as how to train local engineers in such a short period of time. Management of costs and protection of technological secrets are also major concerns.

Toshihide Yamauchi, councillorat the Taiheiyo Engineering, a Tokyo-based defense-focused consultancy, discussed how the Japanese camp can prepare for these challenges, in a recent interview with The Nikkei. Yamauchi previously served as captain of the Japanese submarine Setoshio.

Q: Compared to the German and French rivals in the bidding, what are the advantages of the Japanese submarines?

A: The Japanese submarines can dive much longer without having to surface. This is a significant technology. Japan's Ministry of Defense has said it plans to replace conventional lead-acid batteries with more powerful lithium-ion cells, which will enable the vessels to cruise at high speeds underwater.

The Japanese submarine is as capable in combat as the German boats. Our country is also advanced in combat systems (which can pick out specific sounds of the enemy from surrounding noise and conduct operations based on this information). In addition, Japan has a well-developed supply chain for submarine building. There are companies that can custom-make even a single screw for a submarine..... to read more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

SamuraiBlue said:

Here is a classy response concerning the Australian sub bid;

No political clamoring and/or fear mongering, just talks about the technological superiority of the sub itself.

Click to expand...

antiterror13 said:

And do you really believe the Mitsubishi and Kawasaki would say that French and German subs were better than theirs? even lets say it is the case ?

Click to expand...

SamuraiBlue said:

Here is a classy response concerning the Australian sub bid;

No political clamoring and/or fear mongering, just talks about the technological superiority of the sub itself.

Click to expand...

antiterror13 said:

And do you really believe the Mitsubishi and Kawasaki would say that French and German subs were better than theirs? even lets say it is the case ?

Click to expand...