If you enjoyed my video, please consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/EurasiaNavalinsight or Buy Me A Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/navalinsight or purchase a quality book through my affiliate links in the video description Big thank you to all current and past supporters!
Very well researched. I especially appreciate the fact that you have even looked into cancelled proposals as well as future procurements. You have earned a subscriber sir!
The ANZAC class research was a bit dated. They are no longer equipped with old mechanical radar they were upgraded to the CEAFAR AESA radar system. The CEAFAR is among the best in the world.
@@DarthAwar Yes and no. While Australia does not have a dedicated Marine Corp, the Australian Army has a history and is currently built to preform amphibious operations. Currently 2 RAR is the dedicated amphibious group in the Army and specialise in nearly everything that you would expect of the US Marines corp, granted, on a much smaller budget.
@@BaconGold790 But my point stands their is no Marines in Australia even if their Army is Trained in Amphibious Operations You can't deploy what doesn't exist simple as that
*I class Australia as part of the same because I’m English and if anyone attacked them obviously we would be there to help them hundred percent no doubt about that! The people would demand it but the Government would be addressing the nation of what days lay ahead and why it matters because some people don’t even know the capital of their own countries these days lol*
@@dancerinmaya6813 my point was that would be the reaction of our Government and straight away we would send our 2 new aircraft carrier with all the Attack group and our nuclear subs below. This is not something i would like to happen but im just saying what would happen. Thats what we have been doing; like Russia on receiving end of new tech we only buy special weapons that are above general. But to me thats not enough so we are upping our spending another 1% even though until Ukraine war we were are top of Nato spending in Europe but so is most other countries now so Russia as pushed everyone to do this! Id rather go back in time to before Putin attacked but it is what it is
@@dancerinmaya6813 we Aussies would have said the same until about 1940. This time we are not waiting for it to happen before we strengthen our defence force.
What makes the Anzac's spesial now are their world class CEAFAR 2 AESA radars. Those things are insane. The Hobart is a good destroyer, basically a smaller Bruke with just less armament.
As an Australian I’d like to point out that although our military does and always has punched well above its weight class, to call us a major power is a little bit of a stretch. A moderate power for sure. But we lack the strength of numbers to ever be declared a major power.
We are a major power in the South Pacific, as the host says. We could kick Vanuatu's asses. Until an actual major power from the East Pacific, South-East or South Asia, or Europe showed up. Fortunately, mostly Australians are good swimmers...
The Canberra Class LHD is a terrible military investment. It's not a real aircraft carrier, and would be easily swept aside in any real conflict. A lot of the navy's resources are being placed in an ineffective surface fleet. We don't have the budget or manpower to crew a sufficient number of destroyers and frigates to compete with any competent navy. And with only 6 submarines, at most 3 of them can be on station at any one time. Vessel's spend time in dry dock, and crews go on leave. We try to be good at everything, but don't have the budget. A better force posture would be a minimal surface fleet, and more submarines.
This was a very well made video, thankyou for taking the time to do the research, one minor thing and its not yet confirmed i know there was rumours of looking into getting 3 more destroyers and possibly looking at buying corvettes but again nothing has been made official as of yet.
I’m surprised Australia does not make more Canberra class, it must suit our needs in multiple roles. I usually get to see them each year off my home town when the winter war games usually happen in Nth Qld.
We'd need more destroyer and frigate class vessels to act as escorts first, you can't risk using large expensive vessels like those without adequate support.
You’d need other ships to provide air defense & ASW operations if more Canberra ships is what you want. Which I don’t believe Australia is willing to get.
Australia Navy is in a serious pickle at the moment as servicemen are leaving faster than they can find recruits. Nothing will change under the Australian defence force at the moment until a government is changed. Richard Marles was supposed to give out the future fleet review last year back in 2023 but is still sitting on it and hasn't done anything for RAN. Australia already has one Anzac frigate in dry docked permanently because there are not enough sailors to put it to sea. I don't agree with you about having more of the Spanish desined LHD. Carriers. As they are too small even for jump jets Carriers. The upper deck would need to be a complete redesigned and wider and heat shielded. If Australia were to go for an aircraft carrier they be better off building the South Korean CVX that is planned to be built by South Korea, that is larger than the LHD Australia currently have and it could have upto 30 aircraft on board of F35C and MQ28 ghosts bat drones and other like the US stingray air refuelling ddines ect. The problem with jump jet F35B is that it doesn't have a great range or payload. So, it would be better to have a fixed wing aircraft carrier platform. Rather than a small aircraft carrier that could only carry around 12 jump jets that have poor range and payload
Australia's navy is massive in context of its population, but miniscule in context of its responsibility. France is in the region. US, PRC, India, all with stakes in that region. Then, there's ASEAN.
Yep, we're responsible for a lot of territory, a massive exclusive economic zone and maintaining security in even more international waters but we maintain good relations with ASEAN (being allies or partners to many members and supplying their militaries, especially their navies) and have many allies; including the US, Britain, France and others. Japan and India are growing closer (both in economic and defence ties) and we provide intelligence serives that many countries rely on in the Indo-Pacific.
@@chippyjohn1No 'we' don't. Do you get paid to write this nonsense or are you a bot? The US has been the dominant naval power in the Pacific (and on Earth) since World War 2. I don't think a sudden threat of invasion has materialised and if it had, we wouldn't be acquiring more US produced systems or doing so much to enhance interoperability between Australian and American forces.
@@chippyjohn1Rubbish. I am Australian and I don't vote for the Liberals/Nationals, or the ALP. I am more than happy for the US to station ships in Australian waters.
Australia Navy is under a complete review and update will be given at the end of next month September 2023. As for what vessels Australia will require how many. Australia navy has a few ships that's nearing its service life. It will be interesting about the requirements will be added to the next future fleet. And if Australia will get heavily armed corvettes for OPV or if they go with larger ships. One thing I do understand is Australian navy don't want a brown water navy fleet. Defence Strategic planners like the ideal for blue water vessels for Australia region. As they like to project as far as they can. This not just for fleet requirements but also long strike missile capability
I need to add that although the ANZAC FFHs in the RAN have only 1 Mk41 VLS, they carry quad-packed ESSM, making a total of 32 SAMs. I love seeing my old home port at Stirling on Garden Island!
Interesting is proposal 3 more DDG on offer from Spain plus 6 corvettes to take over light arm OPVs. What missing here 2 new supply ships plus 2 smaller JSV supply ships. It’s going be interesting next decade of decision making of how many surface fleet will be offer n more DDG or more Frigates plus additional of corvettes?
Just a small point, Australian defence force does not have any "Marines", the three arms are Army, Navy and Airforce and all act well as a combined force. The "marines" you mention would be Soldiers of the Army
Australia has combat sailors equivalent to marines and navy combat divers that's equivalent to navy seal. SAS is more equivalent to delta force. Commandos same as green berat
Just another small point. The word Marine is defined as a body of troops trained to serve on land and at sea. In its definition the word has been used world wide to describe any soldiers that are birthed on ships prior to their going to land to serve/fight. So your soldiers you mentioned if trained to use amphibious warfare, if trained to operate from any ship would become Marines by definition, even if they were in the Army. A term used long before the establishment of a official Marine Corp.
This information is quite outdated now, it's looking like the Arafura class is being COMPLETELY cancelled and we'll more than likely be acquiring possibly dozens of small but heavily armed corvettes. It's also looking like we'll only get a maximum of 3 Hunter class frigates, where the gap will be filled but extra corvettes or more Hobart class destroyers.
They need to maintain a substantial fighting capability which should include a conventional aircraft carrier. This would enable them to form a formidable task force, which when allied to the U.K.'s two task forces would present a considerable 'deterrent'.
No no carriers. Let others play around with those huge money pits. Australia has many other areas huge sums of money like that should go long before a carrier
The ski ramp was kept by the RAN as it was cheaper to keep it and not have to redesign the bow. The Spanish Juan Carlos, which the Canberra class was built on, had a ski ramp as they operated Harriers from theirs. There has been plenty of discussion about acquiring F-35Bs for the Canberra class but nothing has ever been decided on.
The ski jump is part of the structure of the ship so it could not be taken off as it would of been unstable, I remember the technical reason was given at the time but it is needed. The ship cannot operate f35b as the deck is not covered with the right material to cope with the heat from the exhaust, but it could probably get that covering if required.
The Turks recently launched a carrier similar to the Canberra’s it is a drone carrier(1st of a kind). Could Australia do the same? Yes. However currently the ADF seems to refuses to accept the idea that the Canberra’s can be used for anything beyond carrying Army vehicles and troops.
I do agree ….however work needs to be done on construction of their containerised nuclear power plants reducing reliance on fuel and giving sufficient power to the laser weapons systems
Good video and mostly spot on however your information on the ANZAC class frigates was quite outdated. They've had several significant upgrades, mostly radar based.
Adapting them to be aircraft carriers or even just thinking about it would provoke China. Understandably no Australian government would want to do that.
I wouldn't call the Hunter class frigate heavily armed given that it has less VLS cells than the Hobart AWD, give that the Australian Type 26 has increased to 10,000ish it is very weakly armed, is it even a frigate any more at that size? Back in the day that would be called a cruiser.
It’s now accepted as almost certain that the Hunter class will be more heavily armed than originally planned. It was designed during a time where 32 cells were considered sufficient but its now obvious to all that a 48 cell capacity is the minimum requirement for its mission. Considering fleet air defence is a secondary role, it won’t need to carry as many SM-2/6 missiles as the Hobart class so with 48 cells, even if 16 are used for long range air defence, it will leave 16 for Tomahawk cruise missiles, and 16 for 64 ESSM. Along with its 8 x NSM in canisters + whatever CIWS it will be fitted with, it’s going to be an effective warship.
@@chrisdoulou8149 Yes for sure they should have 48 atleast and maybe even 64 by the time they are finished being built. I suspect the AWD's might get an upgrade to 64 somehow as well.
@@carisi2k11 I doubt the AWD will get 64 cells, it’s a much smaller ship and the modifications would be so extensive that you’re better off buying an entirely new design at that stage. 48 VLS is enough for 32 SM-2/6 with an additional 64 ESSM, that’s a substantial anti air armament. The only change I’d make is to not arm them with Tomahawks as they take up too many valuable launch tubes, leaving them primarily in the air warfare role, plus with a secondary anti shipping capability with their NSM missiles. The RAN is talking about buying a corvette/light frigate class, in my mind it should probably be a light frigate like the British Type 31 since the Poms are upgrading theirs with a MK-41 launcher in addition to their point defence missiles. With a 32 cell launcher you could carry 24 Tomahawks & 32 ESSM while still having room for a 2 x 4 NSM canisters, while replacing the British point defence system with a SeaRAM. I’d go 3 more AWD for a total of 6, as well as 6 Hunter class for specialist anti submarine work (so trading 3 less Hunters for 3 more AWD), give the Arafura’s to customs, and buy 12 of the Type 31 as a GP frigate. You could keep it cheap because it won’t have any of the AESA radars of the AWD/Hunter or the Hunter’s high end anti submarine capabilities but with high quality datalink capabilities allowing them to operate as part of a task force. One each of the Hunters and Hobarts, plus two Type 31’s will make for a nicely rounded out surface action group with the ability to do whatever you ask of it. The beauty of that setup is that there’s nothing stopping you from leaving the Tomahawks at home for example and adding 24 SM-2/6 missiles to the Type 31 VLS, but using the Hobart for targeting/fire control. This way they can serve as mini arsenal ships for the tier 1 specialist ships without needing their horrifically expensive electronics fitout.
Seems a good Navy....glad that Australia are our Allies. Infact, we have quite a lot in the S E Asia, along with them down under, notably Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines et South Korea....if all joined together, that would be a spectacular Navy lol... regards from India
Well the NZ part of CANZUK has no air force, a navy with only two elderly frigates and a very small army, so they are totally irrelevant. They largely abandoned defence spending over a decade ago.
@@Dave_Sisson Check their contributions towards victory in two world wars. The base is strong, disregarding what overblown govt workers have done in the past generation.
@@brettmitchell6431 I think we are all grateful for what the RNZN did 80 years ago, but *this century* the armed forces have been neglected by both political parties when they have been in government. It became tragic when their air force was disarmed and reduced to a transport operation... and then things got even worse.
Should take a look into the canadian navy they're going to be Build in lots of ships soon right now they're building two new oil replacement At the sea span shipyard in vancouver The canadian navy is also built in fifteen type 26 frigates In eventually they're looking into replacing. The Victoria class diesel electric subs that the Canadian navy bought in the 1990s from the UK.
They are another Navy that really needs SSNs but that is highly unlikely, a Sub replacement program is beginning to gather momentum, South Korea has been talked about.
Drums of war with all this activity. Still not on the level of Chinese expansion. We need the European navies to ramp up production to be able to send a large fleet if needed to the Indo-Pacific.
Since this video was made Australia announce the purchase of Tomahawk cruise missiles that will be deployed on the destroyers, and possibly the new frigates, as well as on the new submarines as they come online. The extended range Tomahawks can be used in both land attack and anti-shipping roles. That is another 1 ½ billion dollars to add to the new equipment purchases.
@@paddlesmcbean2366 That is their initial deployment. The first Virginia arrives in 2032 and will be well suited to the Tomahawk. I am unaware of any final decisions about weapons systems on the new frigates, but Tomahawk seems likely for them. So an initial deployment to three destroyers is the logical starting point, but that will grow over time.
Australia please build at least 40 corvettes (16vitical missile) 30 frigates(32virtical missile) 10destroyer(80virtical missile) 20 attack submarine 2 nuclear submarine to counter Chinese agressive and helping Asian countries you are reach county
Yes with all them warships but 10 Attack And 12 Nuclear Submarine And fuel tankers and support ships and the Canberra class x5 then we would have a great navy .
Australia should have at least 100 surface combating ships. But our government is lucky to give RAN just a replacement with similar numbers. Australia at the moment only has a total of 11 surface combating ships. 6 dated conventional powerd submarines. The rest is merchant navy vessels or undergunned opv. So we don't even have 20 combating ships. Even if the government ordered 8 upgunned varent of the 96 cell VLS Hunter classes and changed the name to attack class. And built 16 Navanti 3600 tonne corvettes with 16 cell VLS for ASW. RAN would have a major increase in fire-power and surface combating ships than they ever had. Along with nuclear powerd submarines, it would work well for Australia defence. You don't need big ships for ASW. But Australia needs more AWDs, so to me, it would make more sense for the Australia government to focus on doing that. Everyone would like more, but realistically, Australia couldn't operate that many vessels you gave without calling for national service. And our government won't do that. How many Anzac frigates we have? 8. How many crew. Around 180 per ship. How many crew is required for hunter class. About the same. So 8 upgunned hunter class 96 cell vls varent will meet the crew already in service How many cew on our F100 AWDs about same as Anzac class around 180 crew. How many crew needed for Navanti corvettes around 96 crew. So the crew of 3 Air warfare destroyers can easily man 6 corvettes. They can, and they can recruit more for the rest of the 10 corvettes that be a total 960 more crew needed, and with a population of 27 million, it shouldn't be that difficult to find for that number What people don't know theirs roughly 80.000 applications to join the ADF every year. Only around 8000 actually get in. So finding crew won't be hard
It is a very well balanced view of the Navy a seen by an outsider with no axes to grind. It does neglect to mention the support ships of the Supply class (HMAS Supply and HMAS Stalwart) and the para-military vessels operated on behalf of the Navy like the Australian Defence Vessels (ADVs) of the Cape Class and large support ships (ADV Ocean Protector, ADV Reliant and ADV Guidance) and the vessels like the MV Sycamore, MV Stoker and MV Besanr. Nor does it mention the MH-60R helos of the Fleet Air Arm. All in all it is a good precis of the current Royal Australian Navy.
Expected to see a fleet of inflatables, we have more than I thought. Only demand has been refugee boats up north & wayward yachtsman, but the world is changing. 🤗
The Henry de Wolf class are built for operating in the Arctic, they have an ice rating of Polar Class 5, virtually ice breakers. They are 6000t and 103m and cost $6B for 6 ships, in comparison it is between $4-5b for 12 Arafura's. An Anzac by comparison is 118m and 4000t. So you can see the design differences between a ship made for the tropics as against Arctic conditions. Could the RAN do with a couple of de Wolfs for operating in the Southern Ocean, possibly but only as an addition to a fleet of OPVs and there is very strong restrictions about operating any military equipment in Antarctica, till the late 2040s.
Only have 3 destroyers 2 carriers no aircraft old anzac being scraped new patrol with no weapons 2 new supply ships both out of action awaiting serious repairs.
I think Australia needs to massively build up its navy. Perhaps double its size. One way we could do this is to expand the Naval Reserve, and increase the numbers of sailors there.
i always come to the conclusion of the reason Australia has such a small navy is based on the fact we have a very easy to defend country so more of our defenses should be land based our country is pretty much cliffs on all sides bar a few cities.
I think Australia should build patrol boats for our regional friends such as East Timor, PNG, the Solomon Islands, Fiji and the new country of Bouganville. I think we should encourage NZ to build up their navy by building a corvette or two and selling it to NZ at a reduced rate.
So if someone attacked Australia, (let’s call them Anihc) landing at the closest point to Asia and then making their way to Australia’s biggest city, (Sydney), by the most direct route, first they’d have to cross the vast shark infested Pacific Ocean. Then wade through hundreds of miles of snake and crocodile infested jungles, before ditching the gum boots to cross about 2000km of emu infested bone dry desert. After which they’d have to battle their way through 50km of barren eshay infested West Sydney, before hitting the ring of inner suburbs and it’s shrieking Karens. And only then would they finally reach the juicy centre that is the harbour bridge and our prized opera house. And there, there they would discover to their cost, that so deep is our nation’s love of multi-act dramatic works set to music for singers and instrumentalists, that the whole nation is prepared to sacrifice itself in defence of that hallowed Temple of the Arts, to the last man, woman and child!
@@johnryan1386wont ever happen with the 2 parties we have to choose between in government. Both sides of the 2 party preffered system we have here are an absolute joke on most issues.....but especially defence procurement.
Australia is too far behind. Left it very late to start doing anything. Australia is vulnerable between now and the next 2 decades, and that's if RAN actually starts to receive new ships on curent scheduled. Any further delays will be a disaster
Australia once had a genuinely world class navy, including multiple aircraft carriers, at a time when only superpowers had them. We can and will return to that type of capability - because we have to.
What the RAN may lack in equipment and manpower it more than makes up for in its training and moral. It is one of the best paid in the world, even more than the Royal Navy. Along with New Zealand and Canada and the United Kingdom and republic of Ireland it has shared common ancestry. It most certainly does punch above its weight and has done so since the Commonwealth of Australia was formed at the dawn of the twentieth century. Its indiginous population and its immigrant population have helped to make Australia what it is today and will insure its future. Advance Australia Fair, though I much prefer Waltzing Matilda myself.
The ADF and the NZDF looks after the defence and humanitarian needs of PNG, Timor Leste, Samoa, Tonga,,The Solomon Islands, Nauru and islands like Tuvalu. We have even provided humanitarian aid to Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami and the 2 Bali bombings.
Each country has a specific role to play in the theatre of war and what alot of people dont realise is that Australia's role is asset defence and convoy protection aswel as Australia's defence force is pretty damn good at atc "air traffic control" which was a major role for Australians during operation desert storm, Australia is not a attacking based military we are defence and support of larger operations
Australia has 2 carriers no aircraft no aircover for the fleet only 3 destroyers for the whole of Australia limited fuel and supplies. Couldn't defend Australia.
I see the Canberra has a ski jump. Helicopters dont use ski jumps, so what is it for? By 2032 the Second Pacific War (due to start in 2027 according to the Pentagon) will be over, so unfortunately many of these new ships will be too late to help out in the war. Perhaps fewer ships but delivered sooner would be a better bet.
Australia needs the F35b on their Flat tops will improve the Navy fighting force. This would counter China aircraft carrier patrols when they leave China to patrol around Australia waters in the future.
RNZN Anzac class underwent a complete $650 million dollar refit in Canada three years ago and were reentered into service last year. That was engines, ships systems, gun emplacement, torpedoes, missile systems, sonar, radar,close in protection and decoys. you name it. The Aussie frigates are now slower than ours too.😂 Ours are hardly ' lightly armed' As for the aussie arafura patrol ships? While they will have up to twelve of them, they will be as well armed as our patrol ships but without our Navy helicopter hanger and landing strip onboard each of ours. So that picture shown is false.
The amphibious vessel, we should of got more of them, Aussie I be, I think we need 15 of them with the spiffy deck to carry F-35B, I think we need a chain of them around Australia,, the hunter are overpriced, $35b for 9 hunter. At the cost of the amphibious vessel that cost $1.55b each we could of buy 22 of them when we just need 15 of them
Honestly if Australia is to increase its navy it should just go and buy the soon to be decommissioned warships and bring them back to life like aircraft carriers normal subs destroyers and so on less money spent on building from scratch
Maintaining equipment past its service life is less cost effective than purchasing new hardware. Don't you think the original owners would keep the same equipment that they are used to running if it made sense?
they have been handed a number of ships by their best buddys that were a disaster rust buckets and can rarely man and deploy more than two subs. crew and breakdowns massive issue. they even put out a PR blurb about their boat being part of a major exercise then had massive embarassment as it was tied up in Singapore broken and waiting to be fixed. some of the new stuff is seriously a dud and doesnt meet requirements hunter frigates look like another dud like multiple helicopter projects and massive disappointment in other major projects like AWACS that seemed promising let alone the F35 Lightning that simply has been pathetic.
We have sailors and 2RAR who do similar roles navy divers do similar role as navy seal. But SAS and commandos is used for main special forces requirements for on land and sea. But I know the navy divers are very good. But not as good as SAS that's equivalent to US delta force. Commandos are equivalent to green bret.
The Canberra class would need an extensive refit to operate the F-35B, the decks would need to be reinforced and the "navionics" would require a complete refit.
That... is not much. I don't think Australia would be able to protect its shipping even to China. Any kind of power projection is out of the question, and they wouldn't be able to defend themselves from a US carrier group. Is Australia doomed to be a colony forever?
All well and good. However, we are talking about decades into the future here. I served 20 years. The reality is we can sustain defence operations for, at best, 10 days. I say defend because Australia can't control our many sea lanes. Now, as seen in Ukraine, should an adversary take us on, the US would not come to the rescue. May chuck a few planes and whatnot but... You won't see Jerry from Baltimore. Furthermore, most ships are fitted for not with. (See my personal vids) We can't recruit the youth. They aren't interested, so manpower alone can't man whatever is in the future. Finally, the military is too weighted down now by civilian logistical support, and there inlays a major disjoint. Submarines, well, you and I will be dead before they appear. Unless we buy off the shelf now. But then that takes money away from the huge social issues with so many sucking on the nation's tit. Just my opinion. Great pictures, though.
the US would absolutely come to our rescue tho? Ukraine had no formal alliance of any such with the US nor NATO, while australia is part of AUKUS, the QUAD and the Five Eyes alliance. If anyone declared war on Australia, the US, UK, New Zealand, Canada, India and Japan would absolutely join Australia.
@@emeraldwarrior588 Australia's defence posture, largely dependent on U.S. support through alliances, may not be as robust as presumed. The idea that the US cavalry, based on America's recent past and current efforts, would come over the hill must set cautious alarm bells. Australia's approach to defence procurement and the outsourcing of significant logistical elements, such as to Linfox, presents potential vulnerabilities. While Australia's geographic remoteness provides some security, it also makes the nation susceptible to maritime threats, with the potential for trade routes to be constrained. Additionally, current defence capabilities across air, land, and sea may not be sufficiently effective in real-time scenarios. A significant concern is the challenge of recruiting the younger generation into the defence forces. While advanced weaponry like the Tomahawk missile sounds impressive, the question remains: who will operate it? Lastly, the forecast for new equipment is programmed to come into effect over the next thirty years roughly. I served 20 yrs at the coal face, so as I said, it's no good having units equipped for not with. I'm amazed at the puffing up of Australia's capabilities. We had a saying realities a bitch.
@@HMASJervisBay The answer to a lack of modern westerners wanting to join the armed forces is automation. Simple to say, but quite long term because the armed forces have always been so backward when it comes to high technology. As Australia has a weakness in manpower, but a potential strength in technology, we should be leading the way in developing defence technology automation, for us and our close allies...
Surface ships are sitting ducks for modern tech and hypersonic missiles. Sick joke and a massive waste of human resources. As for the sub's they'll be relics within a decade as well - well before the nuclear subs ever arrive.
So you appear to be against everything? That's very negative of you. Do you think the Australians should just spend the money on beer and pizza for everyone or do you have an alternative naval strategy in mind?
It's called self defense. Buying attack class nuclear subs designed to operate of the coast of China is NOT defense. These aimed at protecting China's trade routes from China, obviously BS. Having a strong domestic defense is proving very effective in the Ukraine. Layered air defense systems take out air superiority. Drone squads and anti tanks systems are extremely effective. Domestic production of these systems and munitions. But key is diplomacy and strategic alliances. Dump the USA and G20 join bricks and work with our major trading partner and their belt and road program. Dump AUKUS That will a strong message to the USA that they need to clean up their act. Of course any government that tries to exercise it's sovereignty will be removed. Labour learnt that under Whitlam. The the USA is currently dragging us into WW3 and a nuclear exchange.
They need ...to let America...build maassive based ..there plug the gap ..untill they have bulit there own ....they need atleast 3 aircraft carriers...you could get britan. And Japan to bulid theses quicker !!
We are only a nation of 26m people. No way could we afford 3 aircraft carriers and the extra fleet to protect them. For the defence of Australia they are not needed as the RAAF has permanent bases and 3 Bare Bases in northern Australia for aircraft to operate from. Even though most of us could argue at least one of the LHDs converted to take F35Bs could be a good move. If we wanted to increase our longe range strike capability a better option would be a squadron of the new B21s if the USA would approve of the sale in the future.
Australia is an aircraft carrier. Why do we need them for. The F35A's have longer range and in combination with our fuel tankers can do long range missions. I agree that some B21's are more beneficial to us then aircraft carriers.
