Hms Queen Elizabeth

[shep854]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

I just hope this cruise goes well. We really need some national prestige right now.

[JasonJ]

[Stuart Galbraith]

Doesnt count the nuclear submarines. And besides, despite James Bond to the contary, I doubt the Royal Navy would fight the PLAN alone.

[JasonJ]

41 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Doesnt count the nuclear submarines. And besides, despite James Bond to the contary, I doubt the Royal Navy would fight the PLAN alone.

PLAN nuke subs also outnumber UK nuclear subs. Then throw in all the conventional ones for entering this region.

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Outnumber, sure. Better? Very unlikely. Last I heard Chinese nuclear submarines were louder than a Death Metal tribute band playing kettle drums in an echo chamber.

Besides, if they try and sink the bugger, we are all in a war and its more your problem than it is ours. 

[JasonJ]

9 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Outnumber, sure. Better? Very unlikely. Last I heard Chinese nuclear submarines were louder than a Death Metal tribute band playing kettle drums in an echo chamber.

Besides, if they try and sink the bugger, we are all in a war and its more your problem than it is ours. 

Numbers do matter for two points. 1st is that even if their loud, there still more of them out and about and there's a limited number of assets and locations possible for intercepting them and geographical location will be a big factor. If its in the open Pacific between the Philippines and Guam, then many assets can be drawn forth for sub hunting and PRC assets to provide cover for them would be reduced thus making them easy picking. Much different if its in the South China Sea. 2nd, having the higher number of nuclear subs is keeping that number of submarine crew and technicians. So when their newer subs enter service, its more of just a matter of swapping out the old boats for the new ones rather than having to develop the whole works on the human side of it from scratch.

 

Unreliable partners is just as big of a problem as an enemy. For example, no one wanted to go into combat with Sobel.

 

Seeing the UK send QE out here is of course going to be welcomed by Japan's MOD and JSDF.

https://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/wp2020/pdf/R02030301.pdf

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[DougRichards]

On 1/9/2021 at 8:53 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Doesnt count the nuclear submarines. And besides, despite James Bond to the contary, I doubt the Royal Navy would fight the PLAN alone.

Exactly what I was thinking: it isn't as if Australia, Japan, South Korea etc wouldn't get involved, with Taiwan as the 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' not so far away.  To a lesser extent Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam etc would see that their interests are better served throwing their lot in with the anti-Chinese allies rather than waiting to be economically and strategically strangled by the PRC.

Let us not forget the USN, USAF and USMC......

[R011]

59 minutes ago, DougRichards said:

Exactly what I was thinking: it isn't as if Australia, Japan, South Korea etc wouldn't get involved, with Taiwan as the 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' not so far away.  To a lesser extent Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam etc would see that their interests are better served throwing their lot in with the anti-Chinese allies rather than waiting to be economically and strategically strangled by the PRC.

Let us not forget the USN, USAF and USMC......

Much as Biden would want to deploy them in the service of his Chinese paymasters, you're probably safe from them.

[DougRichards]

I wonder if India and France would join the fun?  France would probably side with the Chinese and attempt to blockade Portsmouth, again.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The point is not to fight China though. The point is to demonstrate to China resolve, that there is such a thing as liberal Democracies with spine, despite the best efforts of our leaders to pretend otherwise. The idea seems to be, 'why not trade with us. We will help you, so why not help our economy rather than enabling those who will just sell to you and give you nothing in return'. Perhaps less Pax Britannia than Pax you scratch my back, ill scratch yours, but im not deprecating it as an idea.

That seems to be the basic idea. Whether it will work or not really depends on how inteilligent the politicians are that try to make use of it of course.

[JasonJ]

7 hours ago, R011 said:

Much as Biden would want to deploy them in the service of his Chinese paymasters, you're probably safe from them.

Suga had wanted to meet Biden in February but its looking like it won't happen until April which might not be a good sign. Abe first met with Trump in early February. When Obama became president, then Prime Minster Aso first him in late February. For GWB, first meeting with the Japanese Prime Minster (Mori) was in March.

 

April would indeed be relatively late.

[JasonJ]

5 hours ago, DougRichards said:

I wonder if India and France would join the fun?  France would probably side with the Chinese and attempt to blockade Portsmouth, again.

India has a role for exercising its influence in the Indian Ocean. If there is a Taiwan matter within the decade (I think 2021 is still a little too soon for PRC capabilities for a successful invasion and occupation rather then just BM punishment), India could interdict PRC interest passing through the Indian Ocean for its part in responding to a Taiwan matter. Direct involvement in Taiwan itself wouldn't be necessary per se. By doing so, the India China border may have some sparks though so India would have to be ready for that.

 

As for France, Australia could just drop that sub hot potato. Had the Japanese bid one back in 2016, I reckon the full design of an enlarged Australian Soryu would be completed with the first hull already in the manufacturing phase and thus be ready to contribute in time.

 

 

[JasonJ]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The point is not to fight China though. The point is to demonstrate to China resolve, that there is such a thing as liberal Democracies with spine, despite the best efforts of our leaders to pretend otherwise. The idea seems to be, 'why not trade with us. We will help you, so why not help our economy rather than enabling those who will just sell to you and give you nothing in return'. Perhaps less Pax Britannia than Pax you scratch my back, ill scratch yours, but im not deprecating it as an idea.

That seems to be the basic idea. Whether it will work or not really depends on how inteilligent the politicians are that try to make use of it of course.

While it'll be a very long term competition to keep up the deterrence against PRC military action on Taiwan or something with the SCS, yes, t is not about just starting a fight on China.

 

A whole PRC campaign to invade and occupy Taiwan must surely require force build up beforehand. It can't be launched just on a whim. So force concentration just across the strait should be detectable. I think the new fleet of Type 75 LHDs have an important role in adding to airlift via helicopter of forces and supplies quickly into Taiwan. So a concentration of those big hulls, along with the Type 71 LPDs, should be a big indication. So there should be brief moment for the countries that would oppose such an operation to display their military muscle as a form of intention to defend Taiwan.

[Daan]

1 hour ago, JasonJ said:

As for France, Australia could just drop that sub hot potato. Had the Japanese bid one back in 2016, I reckon the full design of an enlarged Australian Soryu would be completed with the first hull already in the manufacturing phase and thus be ready to contribute in time.

Why would you assume so? According to the Drive the Australians are not only unsatisfied about the enormous cost of the French contract and missed deadlines, but also that the Australian demand, that at least 60% of the work is done through local contractors, has so far not been met. Australia has been 'annoyed' that the 'design work and intellectual property'  is still held in France.

As far as I know Japan has no recent history of exporting and / or transferring sensitive defense technology. A submarine deal with Australia would be a first, with no prior track record indicating that this would go smoothly and to the Australians' satisfaction. Again, the Drive mentioned that Australia picked the French offer over the Japanese given 'questions about the uncertainty of Japan running a major arms export program.'

[Yama]

Seriously, the Soryu option sounds like even bigger minefield than Shortfin Barracuda. Problem is not that French can't deliver a sub, the problem is Australian specific requirements. Same thing as with Collins class.

[JasonJ]

40 minutes ago, Daan said:

Why would you assume so? According to the Drive the Australians are not only unsatisfied about the enormous cost of the French contract and missed deadlines, but also that the Australian demand, that at least 60% of the work is done through local contractors, has so far not been met. Australia has been 'annoyed' that the 'design work and intellectual property'  is still held in France.

As far as I know Japan has no recent history of exporting and / or transferring sensitive defense technology. A submarine deal with Australia would be a first, with no prior track record indicating that this would go smoothly and to the Australians' satisfaction. Again, the Drive mentioned that Australia picked the French offer over the Japanese given 'questions about the uncertainty of Japan running a major arms export program.'

French experience advantage didn't stop the leak with India.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-submarines-india-idUSKCN11014I

 

So there were two program offers from Japan. The first one was straight full product import. So fully built in Japan and exported. But perhaps just with US combat systems, an integration setup already well known with Japan. So its just the Soryu made longer to fit larger battery storage and crew compartment. Getting that design done within 5 years is realistic. So then just Mitsubishi and Kawasaki rolling off the subs like they have been doing for decades already. 

 

The second one was when Abbot got replaced by Turnbull and with it came Australian desire for build-in-Australia. Japan was hesitent at first with this one but did offer an assemble in Australia program. This surely would be difficult for Japan to carry since tech transfer, tooling, and construction training would all be necessary thus drastically increasing cost and task in protecting submarine tech.

 

If Australia just did the first program from Japan, then yes, I feel the Australian fleet of subs would be on their way by now. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by JasonJ

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Daan]

4 hours ago, JasonJ said:

French experience advantage didn't stop the leak with India.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-submarines-india-idUSKCN11014I

The second one was when Abbot got replaced by Turnbull and with it came Australian desire for build-in-Australia. Japan was hesitent at first with this one but did offer an assemble in Australia program. This surely would be difficult for Japan to carry since tech transfer, tooling, and construction training would all be necessary thus drastically increasing cost and task in protecting submarine tech.

If Australia just did the first program from Japan, then yes, I feel the Australian fleet of subs would be on their way by now. 

And German of-the-shelve boats would also have been cheaper and ready for service with less delays. However, the Australians wanted the second option and then with a design meeting their idiosyncratic requirements. Supposedly, the country is now considering a Collins-class derivative.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Daan

[Yama]

2 hours ago, JasonJ said:

If Australia just did the first program from Japan, then yes, I feel the Australian fleet of subs would be on their way by now. 

Maybe, but they could have done same with France and the boats would probably be on their way now...

[JasonJ]

5 hours ago, Yama said:

Maybe, but they could have done same with France and the boats would probably be on their way now...

France didn't offer a large and already existing conventional sub. Their bid was using a nuclear sub design that was still not in service (just entered service last year) and creating a conventional sub out of it. 

[JasonJ]

At the time, for the PRC, the Japanese sub bid would have been "the worse case scenerio". But now with the delay of the French subs, the point about the PRC still being opposed to the new Australian subs sort of goes mute too.

Quote

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Tuesday awarded an A$50 billion ($40 billion) contract to build a new fleet of submarines for Australia to a French enterprise. Japan, which had been a frontrunner in the contest, lost the bid. Japan's Soryu-class submarines are some of the most advanced diesel-electric submarines in the world. Some attributed Japan's failed bid to its lack of experience in military weapons exports and Australia's considerations of avoiding offending China.

However, some Chinese scholars hold that Japan lost the deal because Australia still has concerns over its submarine-building compatibilities. Technological factors weigh more in such a mega project than political factors. 

The worst-case scenario seems to have been avoided since Australia snubbed Japan's submarines.

However, as Australia is an ally of the US, these 12 new submarines will beef up the US' strategic strength in the West Pacific, negatively affecting China's strategic security.

Canberra has attached great importance to its economic links with Beijing, its biggest trading partner. But meanwhile, it has offered more support to US military deployment in the Asia-Pacific region that targets China. Nonetheless, Australia is different from Japan. The former is more willing to show its effort of balance between China and the US, while the latter boasts of its partiality to the US. 

Canberra needs to know that its submarine plan, be it independent or not, is part of the geopolitical game in the Asia-Pacific and will be used as a bargaining chip for the regional strategic wrestling. Should it add to military pressure against China, it will be compelled to develop stronger counteroffensive capabilities, which in the end runs counter to the national interests of Australia.

Australia after all is located far away from China's continental sea. The simmering tensions between China and the US in the South China Sea are harmful to Australian national security. Therefore, Australia can only secure its best interests by detaching from the South China Sea disputes and not fanning the disputes from outside.

That China will reconstruct the order of the South China Sea, stifle freedom of navigation and block the trade routes of Australia is an illusion. China was accused of changing the status quo of the South China Sea through island building. But it's the US that is a real status quo changer by increasing troop numbers in Darwin, deploying a P-8 Poseidon spy plane to Singapore and reopening five military bases in the Philippines.

If Australia pursues long-term national development and security, it should use its own advantages to help alleviate strategic tensions between China and the US. It should find the correct balance for the sake of peace in the Asia-Pacific.  

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/980304.shtml

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://news.usni.org/2021/02/03/carrier-hms-queen-elizabeth-will-drill-with-japanese-in-pacific-during-deployment

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith