The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Is the Navy talking up China's nuclear submarine threat? > Comments

Is the Navy talking up China's nuclear submarine threat? : Comments

By Marko Beljac, published 12/9/2008

Should the Australian Defence Force be structured and sized for going to war against China as an appendage of US Pacific Command?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
>> For instance, to just knock out the land-based leg of the US strategic triad

China has always had a countervalue, as opposed to a counterforce, deterrent. China's weapons are targeted at cities, not missile silos.
Posted by john frum, Friday, 12 September 2008 10:13:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Much of this is reminiscent of an OLO article of 4 August 2008 "China could well be a problem for Australia". http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7724

"To make up for China’s deficiencies in conventional arms it relies to a limited extent on long range nuclear missiles based on land and sea. These present a potential, though unlikely, threat to Australia. The submarine launched ballistic missiles are based around two known Type 094 [Jin Class] ballistic missile submarines."

"These submarines are still probably partial solutions to China’s needs not the final designs China will rely on for decades. Some analysts consider it highly likely that the 094’s are noisy, hence easy to detect, and carry less than half the warheads mounted on the missiles of modern Russian, US, French and British nuclear submarines."

"...The 094’s JL-2 missiles have a range of at least 8,000km. As Darwin is only 5,200km from Sanya and Brisbane 7,000km this puts these Australian cities in range without a 094 having to leave Chinese waters."

Your article is a useful explanation to the layman and a good curtain raiser on White Paper issues, but a little US centric. China has other regional competitors (which have nuclear weapons already or a short term nuclear breakout capability). China may equate its nuclear capability to these countries.

I agree that China's US policy is to make it too painful for the US to attack Chinese interests and not try to beat the US in a nuclear war - but that is just part of China's multi-country nuclear strategy.

Peter Coates
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2008/05/chinas-new-nuclear-naval-base-spotted.html
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 12 September 2008 11:57:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is rather alarming, what are we getting ourselves into? As usual, America's geo-political rivals are seen as Australia's enemies by our politicians.
Posted by mac, Friday, 12 September 2008 4:06:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While not dismissing China as a threat to Australian security, I remain perplexed at Australia's poor efforts at coastal defence given our long coastline and the present threat from terrorism. One thing the Labor party got right in the election before last is that we need a Coast Guard. At the moment we have poorly armed patrol boats (like the old Attack class boats seen on footage last night on ABC news, although I believe the boats were supposed to be "current"!) which would be useless in a "proper" war and perform Coast Guard-type duties anyway. The future may bring "climate change refugees", or trouble in Indonesia many small-scale raids, so to my mind a combination of many patrol boats, corvettes, frigates and the like, with the larger craft missile-armed and ASW capable, is preferable to a handful of expensive destroyers (which are now cruisers by WWII standards, tonnage-wise).

If we are to have a "bluewater Navy" I would think that protection of our sea-lanes would be of the highest priority rather than to attempt to protect ourselves against submarine launched missiles which, if successful would have this country on its knees in minutes anyway.

A trivial point aimed at a PhD student: westernmost is one word (or at least, hyphenated).
Posted by viking13, Friday, 12 September 2008 4:20:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is all but useless and worthless investing in billions of dollars of military acquisitions when they would be blown out of the sky in minutes, if not by superior forces (which will no doubt be highly likely) then by sheer numbers.

I think our politicians are being sold a fantasy by both our defence forces (who are in a position of conflicted interest), and foreign companies from the USA that talk up all these systems but know very well they are useless today or will be very soon (and are simply seeking to make some profit at our expense).

Not only that but our continued association with the provocative USA will almost certainly land us in the bottom of a mass grave. As an ally we would be an instant nuclear target (and no missile shields will protect us...that is a myth to allow the USA companies to make more $$$).

As someone said before a bigger and more realistic threat to Australia is protecting our oceans. An invading force will wipe the floor with us no matter how much we throw at 'the problem'. Chasing such a vain dream would make us bankrupt or at the least certainly divert significant investment away from severe domestic problems and infrastructure.
Posted by Steel, Friday, 12 September 2008 5:06:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel. What would make you think china would want to attack AU for.
Posted by olly, Friday, 12 September 2008 7:43:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have to examine the subtext of China’s intent; it is not the general population of China that poses a threat, it is the 270 million hardened – cashed up- Communist elites who have mutate in Ideology as much as Himmler’s Aryan race .
These Chinese new age Aryans in Ideology will take advantage of the fact America is rapidly in decline in Industrial –economically and intellectually decadent and on the decay.

Australia is a great land mass, and we have been under Ideological Occupation for 40 odd years; the above mention of Intellectual decay applies to Australia more so now than America; but it is trendy to punch and Bash America , and worship the Communist /Socialist satires of Ideology of insanity.

I hope your bunker is deep ; there is a distinct lack of good people left , and have been over run with the abundance of decadent morons.

I am without certainty if it is Arabic or Mandarin that will be the new Language of Australia – Well Mandarin for us, and on a precent assumption, it would be a combination of both Arabic and mandarin for everyone else.
Posted by All-, Saturday, 13 September 2008 9:26:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I should have explained that the example of Decadent Subversiveness in language was Dr Carl recently at a public lecture, when he explains the virtues of the new atom smasher, and the fact it cost 8 billion dollars; made the association with the cost of Three US air force stealth bombers that drop bombs and kills people; - Where as Communist and Socialist egocentricities Weaponry only tickle you to death in his comparison and philosophical positioning I suppose ; and I suppose if we are not Far loong goong (spelling?) We may be spared the wrath of body part snatching; another wonder of socialism.
Posted by All-, Saturday, 13 September 2008 9:54:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any white paper from our mate K RUDD will be an exercise in futility while the navy is still run as a weak reflection of the pre WW11 british royal navy.

We have 2, or is it now 3 ships, firmly tied to the shore, as we don't have enough engineering sailors to man them. Those we do have are leaving in droves. While we have petty dictators treating these quite well trained, & competent young men as naughty children, the exodus will continue. There is no shortage of positions in "civy street" where their knowledge, & experience, will be highly paid, & treated with the respect it deserves.

Viking 13, our current patrol boats are designed to be armed with ship to ship missiles, which would make them a very effective, if expendable, weapon against any incomming force. Of course, weapons, & weapons training is expensive, so we have a make believe force. As they are not allowed to actually hit an illegal with weapons fire, they use sailors lives, rather than the weapons they do have, to stop them. What bullsh#t.

So now you want yet another bureaucray, chewing up most of the budget of a miceky mouse force of toy boats, which still wount be allowed to use its weapons, if any. And you want this, while the real navy is on restricted sea time, due to fuel restrictions, to save money. Get real.

If you want an effective navy, arm what we have, with the best there is, [for the purpose], train the blokes in using them, [that means firing some of this expensive stuff] & make the crew's life more enjoyable. You then might have a force capable of expansion.

Gettting the numbers up so you can reduce the sea time of the good sailors, to a level where divorce is not inevitable, might be a good second move, after the respect.

Then, for gods sake, don't do the labor party thing fo buying your ship design [subs] from a country who's navy run around a mountain lake.

Pinch of salt anyone?
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 13 September 2008 10:26:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i don't think China will invade Australia. That's the whole point. However, you can bet if the USA which is meddling in Asia-Pacific region and is right next to the Chinese coast provoking them, that if Australia is involved and the USA use nuclear weapons on China, that if the situation escalated and our 'worthless' forces were deployed against China, that we would be an automatic target of nuclear attack. Our forces contribute almost nothing to the USA and always will. However they expose us as an extra target, which is convenient for the USA in some ways.
Posted by Steel, Saturday, 13 September 2008 2:06:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia cant defeat China and what she plans for the region (she hardly calls us "New South China" or "New China" without serious long-term plans for Australians...i.e. invade them, bind them and re-educate them and we will take their wives for our sons as well...thats no joke thanks to the One Child policy).
When we should have built defences, real defences... we blew it. Federal government after federal government kept putting it off... now its too late.
If something happens to the US nuclear umbrella... Australia is as good as finished.
Soon the USA will take up conflicts with China and/or Russia and become embroiled in war. The northern door is then open for Indonesia as well.
This the committed christians know because they watch the "signs of the times" (Luke chapter 21 and theyve read about the vast asian confederacy army called the "kings of the east" in John's Revelation (the last book in the Holy Bible...Revelation 9:16 and 16:12).
The only thing that might save a portion of Australia is decentralisation for home guard defence force.
Scatter the people away from nuclear target areas and substantiate a rural home guard.
Do less and one day the Red flag lies over Australian soil.
Posted by Gibo, Saturday, 13 September 2008 7:50:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think ya got hold of yourself GIBO Whats the time frame on this prediction of yours, seeing you say it is now to late.
Posted by jason60, Saturday, 13 September 2008 8:07:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The time frame jason60 is "within the space of your lifetime".
From the foundation of Israel (1948) to the end of the age (the Second Coming of Jesus Christ) is the period of the last generation. Before all those born in '48 all die out.
Just before the Return of The Lord China moves out and I believe south. Theres so many prophecies about half of Australia lost.
Its too late to Australia...thanks to fool governments and fool Defence.
All thats left is to try and stop the loss of it all.
Jason60...youre going to live to see it all, so lets strengthen those weak wrists and lets get ready.
There will be no mighty USA in the Bibles endtimes...just China and Russia.
Posted by Gibo, Sunday, 14 September 2008 9:40:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gibbo Well the bible was wrote before the USA was invented so i am not suprised they don't get a mention. Which half of Au . The desert bit or the green bit. You got it bad to be talkin shxxt like that, i wory for your future. Why point the finger at china, the expansions in china are less than skin deep.
Posted by jason60, Sunday, 14 September 2008 7:54:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i'm surprised this topic hasn't received more discussion (or interest). is it because people agree and thinks there is nothing to say on this, or because it is too obscure to comment on? i find this issue very important. From both a waste perspective but also the dangerous consequences of continuing entanglements of Australia in conflicts between the USA and other countries, or possible though unlikely danger in 'withdrawing'. Better left to the defence and intelligence industries with their *conflicted interest*? I personally do not think so as Australians are being ripped off by special interests
Posted by Steel, Monday, 15 September 2008 12:56:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi jason60.
Which half? All of the land north of Byron Bay NSW and North West Cape WA. The northern half of Australia. All thats dry and all thats green in that half.
Draw a line on a map across Australia from Byron Bay NSW to Nth West Cape WA and you will see what Im talking about. Its all of that land north of that line. This is shown in Pastor Jack Burrells book WHAT WILL BECOME OF AUSTRALIA (1975). God will allow the invader if the nation fails to repent of her sin. This is the essence of the many revelations to the christians about China.
Yes, I have concerns for the future as well but I no longer have much fear of death.
When I invited Jesus into my life most of the fear left.
For 16 years or so Ive been collecting prophecies and visions from the committed christian churches about an invader on Australian soil. Theres many out there amongst the churches and I believe they are true. I sure do! Theres too many of them for it not to be true. God still Sends prophecies and visions today. This is known to those who seek the Gifts of the Holy Spirit...of which prophecies and "words of knowledge" about the future are just two of those Gifts.
Its going to be an endtimes invasion when Australia has to stand alone in the South Pacific... for at least a while.
Sorry about the USA. Gods going to Judge her for her sins as well (A.C.Valdez's 1929 vision and A.A.Allen's 1954 vision are good starting points on this).
Chinas building a huge army... and she never stops. Whats that about if its not about the outward march into asia/sth east asia.
Yep...I reckon Australia has already lost it. At least a vast chunk of the land.
You need Jesus in your life if you upset about all of this. Remember...He is only a prayer away.
"Everyone who calls on the Name of The Lord will be saved"...Romans 10:13.
See you in a lively christian church this Sunday?
Posted by Gibo, Monday, 15 September 2008 7:11:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reckless defence spending has hitherto squandered tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and the Australian defence realm warrants scrutiny.

ADF recruiting is weak (perhaps attributable to dilution of the warrior ethos and an enduring “make love not war” creed that originated in the 1960s) with financial inducements hitherto not significantly improving recruiting. Combat units in the ADF are generally undermanned and several contentious new capabilities will predictably only have token operational status, a la the submarine force. Australia’s defence capacity is obviously governed by sustained manpower deficiencies so why have our political leaders sanctioned multiple costly and (arguably) some inappropriate hardware acquisitions?

Put bluntly, defence management is hugely dysfunctional. Influence peddling by major ‘arms bazaar’ players is rampant in Canberra involving strong political connections. The Defence Material Organization headed by the former supremo of the Collins submarine project also seems to act without adequate oversight and refuses to publicize projects costing detail on security grounds, thus being contemptuous of taxpayers.

The Collins class submarine debacle cost the nation dearly, also the ill-conceived Seasprite helicopter. Other projects in train that would not withstand thorough cost-benefit analysis include the Wedgetail and Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft, Tiger attack and MRH-90 helicopters and LHD aircraft carriers to name just a few; yet nobody is held accountable! The whole shameful scenario warrants an unrestricted Royal Commission.

Prime Minister Rudd contends “defence” (his word) of Australia’s trade routes paramount; but continental Australia and vast surrounding oceanic territory are physically indefensible by our very modest military capacity. The best we might achieve within ADF manning limitations and at justifiable cost is to substantially improve offshore surveillance and provide a versatile maritime strike capability to “deter” interference with our national interests.

The nation is facing inevitable economic decline with huge expenditure necessary to offset decades of infrastructure neglect and social disadvantage so our politicians need to get their priorities right. Continued inappropriate spending on defence by successive Australian Governments will not be economically sustainable.
Posted by Bushranger 71, Monday, 15 September 2008 8:13:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gibbo Your brand of science doesn't turn me on. I want hard facts , not fiction. When religion comes into discussion, it loses credability. You must have a pretty torrid time on these sunday meetings. I live in the real world, when you see a speeding car you know someone has got their foot on the accelerator.
Posted by olly, Monday, 15 September 2008 9:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushranger71,

Is that a callsign btw?

DMO has only been up and about since 2000. My understanding is that the Sea Sprite project was not DMO initiated or managed nor was the Collins class. The acquisitions process has improved significantly over its predecessor, although there are still problems.

I wonder how it is you believe that the AWACs and Tankers don’t help with the maritime strike capability that you refer to?

And I would have though that the MRH-90 and the Tiger were both no brainers, vital as they are to modern battlefield mobility, surveillance and force protection.

The Collins class, whilst it cost way too much, is now a potent capability and the lack of crews which is limiting its effectiveness should be immediately redressed.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 2:16:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those are the real hard facts Olly.
Without Jesus and The Holy Spirit in our lives its all simply drifting along with theory and daydreaming.
The truth is that there have been many revelations to the christians of Australia about enemy soldiers on Australian soil and it all fits "the China build-up".
The REAL world is where Gods Spirit lives and works amongst christian pastors and ministers and ordinary believers...where theres prophecy and "words of knowledge" of the future....where people get healed...where the truth of a young earth is taught.
May God Bless you so that it clicks in your heart.
Genuinely inviting Jesus Christ in...is a really marvellous experience.
I smile nowadays at the ignorant young man I was to have believed that evolution was anything and that man was going to star trek to a glorious world conquering future...
Not without God in his life first he isnt.
Posted by Gibo, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 5:06:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Olly,
Gibo and I don't see eye to eye on many issues, but he does have a real faith in the power of God, his son Jesus and the Holy Spirit. None of these things can be proven to the unbeliever. The existance of God cannot be proven to anyone who doesn't want to know God, at times I can't prove it to myself. Faith in God is exactly that. When you see a speeding car, you know someone has got there foot on the accelerator, and that is the most likely answer, however what if the pedel was stuck, as once happened to me in an old car?
Everybody has faith of some type, When I fly in a plane, I have faith the the pilot knows how to fly that plane. I don't personally check his flying credentials, I have faith that the airline has done that.
Any reader of this site will know that Gibo believes Australia will be invaded by China. He has referred to verses in the Bible that suggest this. My view is that is his interpretation. Personally, I doubt that Australia will be invaded by China. If the Chinese want to take over Australia, all they need to do is migrate here in numbers and then get elected to Government and take control.
Posted by Steel Mann, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 8:17:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Paul L.,

Yes a callsign; I was the original Bushranger 71.

Much forum commentary overlooks that we have a ‘pretend’ military in many respects. Little parcels of expensive hardware are not credible military capabilities particularly if they cannot be adequately manned.

Collins submarine shortcomings were apparent very early in the project and the combat system was recently replaced at huge cost. The Seasprite was never going to be a viable project and should have been cancelled years back.

5 Wedgetail may provide 3 continuously online and 1 aircraft would require about 7 crews to provide 24/7/30 surveillance considering world recognized aircrew endurance limits. Intended aircrew manning for the Wedgetail is only 9 or 10 crews overall if they can be recruited so its continuous surveillance capability will be limited to just 1.5 aircraft to cover vast oceanic areas. Australia is the launch customer for a project that is hitherto a technical failure.

The prematurely retired RAAF B707 would have endured for another 15 to 20 years as will USAF versions. A large force of tankers is necessary to support combat operations and 5 MRTT will only provide 3 online at best which will be little more than a ferry flight refuelling capability. The secondary cargo role of the MRTT is limited by suitable airfield availability in the region.

The Rudd Government has already admitted the Tiger attack helicopter a failed project, the aircraft being entirely unsuited in multiple respects to replace the Iroquois gunship which could have been cost-effectively upgraded to Huey II for about $2million. So-called attack and gunship helicopters were created for differing roles with the latter being far superior for intimate close air support.

Unjustifiable rubbery costings for the Tiger and MRH90 are between $45million and $78million per aircraft, perhaps half the cost of sophisticated JSF or F22 aircraft! Battlefield helicopters perform very basic functions and upgraded Kiowa, Iroquois, Chinook versions are performing primary combat roles today. Arguably, at least $4billion of taxpayer funds has been irresponsibly forfeited on helicopter projects
Posted by Bushranger 71, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 9:31:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy