Australia's submarine solution

[JohnDe]

Sal Mercogliano, creator of What's Going on With Shipping? , gives a very good explanation for Australia's requirement of submarines.

On this episode of What's Going on With Shipping, Sal Mercogliano discusses the proposed acquisition of nuclear submarines by the Royal Australian Navy and the reason behind why Australia needs such vessels.​

 

[Knobby22]

Here's the problem I have: You can't trust the yanks.
When we were being their lapdog and had words with China. Once China cut trade with us the US rushed in to fill the void on products they couldn't compete with us on.

The US would have no qualms letting Australians die rather than US citizens for their stupid quest to control the east.
Those subs lock us down into the idiocy of the Yank war machine.

I don't trust the US to have Australians interests in mind.

I am really happy for this reason that the UK is part of the deal.
There was talk from some of the possible Republican nominees that the USA need the subs more and this was a Biden mistake.

They would end the deal if they got elected.

As we are partially buying them from the UK, this argument has effectively ended.

 

[rederob]

Sal Mercogliano, creator of What's Going on With Shipping? , gives a very good explanation for Australia's requirement of submarines.

Sal is a great commentator on merchant shipping.
In this particular case it is so filled with factual errors it's embarrassing.
From early on (@ 3:50), for example, he says Australia "is astride some major shipping lanes." This is not the case as the shipping lanes are directly to and from Australia, and third parties nations do not use these lanes.

Neither the military case nor the idea that Australia needs subs to protect its merchant fleet make sense.
The military case involves Australia interposing itself within a region of a hundred times its population. How a handful of subs will be especially useful in that context is not easily explained, especially as we would need to pass through some major national archipelagos many thousands of kilometres away to play a part.

The case for protecting our commercial shipping is less credible again. The logic runs along the lines of China is our greatest threat and they will therefore attack ships from Australia which are essential to China's continued industrialisation??? Is there is a nation with more seaborne traffic than China? It would be somewhat obvious that it's China needing to protect its trading interest more than Australia!

America and the UK must be laughing all the way to their banks.

 

[SirRumpole]

The case for protecting our commercial shipping is less credible again. The logic runs along the lines of China is our greatest threat and they will therefore attack ships from Australia which are essential to China's continued industrialisation??? Is there is a nation with more seaborne traffic than China? It would be somewhat obvious that it's China needing to protect its trading interest more than Australia!

We trade with others in the region besides China.

What if China hijacks a shipment of our iron ore to Japan deciding that they need it more ?

What could we do about it if we didn't have a long range capability like nuclear subs ?

 

[JohnDe]

We trade with others in the region besides China.

What if China hijacks a shipment of our iron ore to Japan deciding that they need it more ?

What could we do about it if we didn't have a long range capability like nuclear subs ?

I concur. And would like to hear rederob's answer to your question.

From his post, it sounds like rederob watched the video with only one eye and one hear. I thought that Sam explained himself and the issues very well and clearly, mentioned that he used a source that is experienced in the field of submarines, and also showed us all the shipping routes and gave us an historical perspective.

Maybe rederob needs to refresh his history, specifically on how, during WWII, the sea trade routes were mined and patrolled by submarine and camouflaged attack ships.

 

[JohnDe]

Sal is a great commentator on merchant shipping. But....
In this particular case it is so filled with factual errors it's embarrassing...

Wow, you have the gall to belittle someone's work, a person that is qualified in many of the areas being discussed on this thread, teaches, and puts his name to his work. You, a person that hides behind a username and lets others believe that you are more qualified than the leading experts that comment. I think there is a word for that.

Salvatore R. Mercogliano is an associate professor of History at Campbell University in Buies Creek, North Carolina and teaches courses in World Maritime History and Maritime Security. He is also an adjunct professor with the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and offers a graduate level course in Maritime Industry Policy. A former merchant mariner, he sailed and worked ashore for the U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Command. His book, Fourth Arm of Defense: Sealift and Maritime Logistics in the Vietnam War, available through the Naval History and Heritage Command.

Sal Mercogliano

gcaptain.com

Dr. Salvatore Mercogliano​

Chair, Department of History, Criminal Justice and Politics
College of Arts & Sciences
Associate Professor of History, Chair
History Criminal Justice & Political Science
College of Arts & Sciences
Faculty Athletic Representative
Office of the President

---

Biography​

Courses Taught: Western Civilization, U.S. History, Civil War, American Military Experience, and World Maritime History

Fields of Interest: Military and Maritime History; Maritime Industry Policy, and World History

Sal Mercogliano - Directory | Campbell University

directory.campbell.edu

 

[JohnDe]

This picture shows how far and how long nuclear submarines can travel from Australia, through choke points.

 

[rederob]

Wow, you have the gall to belittle someone's work, a person that is qualified in many of the areas being discussed on this thread, teaches, and puts his name to his work. You, a person that hides behind a username and lets others believe that you are more qualified than the leading experts that comment. I think there is a word for that.

You apparently think that someone who is an expert in a different field is more important than providing a justification for the obscene expenditure on nuclear subs that diminishes our army and airforce capability.
Are you actually able to debate, or will you keep indulging in logical fallacies?

 

[rederob]

This picture shows how far and how long nuclear submarines can travel from Australia, through choke points.

And this is relevant in what way?
By the looks of things Australia's submarines are more important to other nations who have a greater vested interest in protecting their sea routes than us.

 

[rederob]

What if China hijacks a shipment of our iron ore to Japan deciding that they need it more ?

What if the sky falls?
If that's the nature of thinking that spins in people's minds here then lord help us.

What could we do about it if we didn't have a long range capability like nuclear subs ?

Is your idea that after China takes this shipment we attack them with a missile barrage? And start a war?
OMG.
That scenario is from cloud cuckoo land.

 

[SirRumpole]

What if the sky falls?
If that's the nature of thinking that spins in people's minds here then lord help us.

Is your idea that after China takes this shipment we attack them with a missile barrage? And start a war?
OMG.
That scenario is from cloud cuckoo land.

So anything China does is ok with you is it ?

I'd suggest that a hijack of goods belonging to someone else is starting a war, not the reaction to it.

 

[JohnDe]

You apparently think that someone who is an expert in a different field is more important than providing a justification for the obscene expenditure on nuclear subs that diminishes our army and airforce capability.
Are you actually able to debate, or will you keep indulging in logical fallacies?

I will always have more faith in someone that has proven qualifications and puts their name to their work, over a faceless person hiding behind a username.

You my friend are a faceless person hiding behind a username, that is unable to accept any other views than your own. You appear unable to process facts from qualified and published professional works.

I doubt that there is anyone that is an expert on all the fields required, but Sal Mercogliano comes a lot closer than you.

 

[rederob]

So anything China does is ok with you is it ?

How about coming up with something other than Australia attacking China because they apparently needed Japan's iron ore.
That's stretches reason.

I'd suggest that a hijack of goods belonging to someone else is starting a war, not the reaction to it.

How does that make sense?

 

[rederob]

I will always have more faith in someone that has proven qualifications and puts their name to their work, over a faceless person hiding behind a username.

Your logical fallacies are not debate!

You my friend are a faceless person hiding behind a username, that is unable to accept any other views than your own. You appear unable to process facts from qualified and published professional works.

You have not presented any relevant facts. You also claimed I had not answered your questions, so where are they?

I doubt that there is anyone that is an expert on all the fields required, but Sal Mercogliano comes a lot closer than you.

I doubt it.
I was involved in combined force structure reviews and Sal probably was not.

But that's beside the point. What exactly are you bringing to the table here apart from information anyone can read at their leisure? For example, your map at post #347 does not have the subs "defending" in our region. And how do a handful of Virginia class "fast attack" submarines make sense when we have such a massive shoreline to protect or "defend"?

Weapons technologies are moving more and more into AI and autonomous operation. Bayraktar became famous for its slow TB2 which had limited strike power. Their latest iteration will be supersonic and carry a payload up to 1500kg with its range of weapons including precision-guided munitions, air-to-air missiles, and cruise missiles:

Bayraktar is just one of many examples of what can be done at scale, relatively quickly and very cost effectively. AUKUS is the opposite on every count.

 

[JohnDe]

I doubt it.
I was involved in combined force structure reviews and Sal probably was not.

I also doubt it. Anyone that loves to drop hints of past achievements with no facts or proof of those said achievements while hiding behind a username is one to be doubted, by everyone.

Even though your opinions are fallacious, and you have started to try and move the goal posts possibly in an attempt to incite rage when your rants don't take traction, you have the right to post like everyone else.

 

[SirRumpole]

How about coming up with something other than Australia attacking China because they apparently needed Japan's iron ore.
That's stretches reason.

How does that make sense?

Stealing goods not belong to them is not an act of war ?

Why not ?

Should they get away with it ?

(Purely hypothetical of course, but who knows what might happen when dictators go bananas
).

 

[rederob]

Even though your opinions are fallacious,

Really?
What are my opinions?
I keep presenting the same case from the outset. Too few subs, too late, too expensive, operating too far away and at the expense of a better army and airforce capability.

... and you have started to try and move the goal posts

Really?
Give an example please.

... possibly in an attempt to incite rage when your rants don't take traction

I presented my points clearly and have responded to questions put to me.
You have been intent on fallacious arguments from authority or identity.

 

[rederob]

Stealing goods not belong to them is not an act of war ?

Ask a cop on the beat.

Should they get away with it ?

The real question is why they would do such a stupid thing when they have so many lawful options that they are already complying with.

From a strategic perspective the AUKUS decision fails the test of literal "defense".
The idea that a small number of submarines can protect our borders does not cut the mustard. Worse, the Virginia class submarines are not ideal in continental waters.

Australia is geographically well placed from a defence perspective because any sustainable attack has to come a long way by sea and be vulnerable for days. Raining down tens of thousands of missiles on such a fleet from land or air would not be difficult nowadays. It was never an option in WWII.

Both China and Russia have missile capabilities that reach Australia from their soil so they could strike without actually going to sea. But that does not win them ground. Our defence needs a strong focus on an ability to repel landings, given that's the only thing that would prevent a takeover. The war in Ukraine shows how hard it is for an attacking nation to win ground if there is a capable defence.

 

[JohnDe]

Stealing goods not belong to them is not an act of war ?

Why not ?

Should they get away with it ?

(Purely hypothetical of course, but who knows what might happen when dictators go bananas
).

I fear that rederob is trying to move the goal posts. His views can't be substantiated, so his tactics have changed.

 

[SirRumpole]

Ask a cop on the beat.

The real question is why they would do such a stupid thing when they have so many lawful options that they are already complying with.

From a strategic perspective the AUKUS decision fails the test of literal "defense".
The idea that a small number of submarines can protect our borders does not cut the mustard. Worse, the Virginia class submarines are not ideal in continental waters.

Australia is geographically well placed from a defence perspective because any sustainable attack has to come a long way by sea and be vulnerable for days. Raining down tens of thousands of missiles on such a fleet from land or air would not be difficult nowadays. It was never an option in WWII.

Both China and Russia have missile capabilities that reach Australia from their soil so they could strike without actually going to sea. But that does not win them ground. Our defence needs a strong focus on an ability to repel landings, given that's the only thing that would prevent a takeover. The war in Ukraine shows how hard it is for an attacking nation to win ground if there is a capable defence.

Agreed to a point. Nuclear powered subs have more chances of sinking landing craft than land based missiles whose locations could be detected or aircraft that have limited range.

Surface ships are sitting ducks for missile attacks and we don't have enough of them.