Latest news with #AustralianDefenseForce
Asia Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Asia Times
Australia's trade would be fatally exposed in a US-China war
If war breaks out between the United States and China someday, one of the major concerns for Australia is the impact on its trade. Our trade routes are long and exposed. Every year, thousands of merchant ships — bulk carriers, tankers, container ships and other types — visit Australian ports to deliver imported goods and pick up exports for delivery at distant ports. When a cargo ship of petroleum leaves the Persian Gulf for refining in East Asia, then sails for Australia, the total trip is approximately 20,000 kilometers. The ship passes through lonely stretches of sea and numerous choke points, such as the Strait of Malacca in Southeast Asia, often within range of missiles and other weapons. Such attacks could come from Chinese ships in the event of a war, or as we've seen in the Middle East with the Houthi rebels, they could also come from militants seeking to disrupt global shipping. Australia's current defense strategy cites the security of our 'sea lines of communication and maritime trade' as a priority. The aim is to prevent an adversary from cutting off critical supplies to our continent in a war. To achieve this, the government has embarked on the lengthy process of expanding the Royal Australian Navy surface and sub-surface fleet, including the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. As I explain in my forthcoming book, The Big Fix: Rebuilding Australia's National Security, the problem with the government's maritime plan is that it is built on a deeply flawed foundation and cannot deliver what it promises. Defense documents insist on a need for the Australian Defense Force to be able to project naval power far from Australia's shores in order to protect the nation's trade. The presence of these warships would ostensibly deter attacks on our vital shipping. However, those who developed the maritime plan do not appear to have considered whether the merchant ships delivering this trade would continue to sail to Australia in the event of a war — presumably with China. The reality is that Australia's A$1.2 trillion (US$778 billion) of exports and imports are carried in ships owned by non-Australian companies, flying foreign flags and largely crewed by citizens of other countries. Decisions about whether to continue sailing to Australia during a conflict would be made in overseas boardrooms and capitals. The Australian government has no leverage to force the owners of these ships to continue to service our continent. Australia's national interests may well not be the paramount concern. Nor does the Australian government have the option to turn to Australian-flagged vessels. Australia's shipping list contains only a handful of domestically owned and flagged cargo ships available in case of war. In fact, the biggest vessel (by length) that the government could take into service is the Spirit of Tasmania IV ferry. If all goes according to schedule, at some point in the 2040s, Australia will have at most 26 surface warships and perhaps eight nuclear-powered submarines, the navy hopes to acquire through the AUKUS deal. Australia is expected to acquire three Virginia-class submarines from the US under the AUKUS deal. Photo: Colin Murty / AAP via The Conversation Due to training and maintenance requirements, the total number of vessels available at any one time would be more on the order of ten. In other words, the government's future maritime plan, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, may result in just ten available ships at any given time to protect the nation's trade over thousands of kilometers. Fortunately, Australia has other options for safeguarding its trade that don't necessitate the building of warships. Our first investment in security should be diplomatic. The government should prioritise its investment in diplomacy across the region to promote security, including trade security. Regional countries are best placed to secure the waterways around Australia, particularly from the most likely future threat: Houthi-like militants. The Australian government should also modernize its shipping regulations and include in the budget provisions for war-risk insurance. Such insurance could compensate owners for the potential loss of ships and cargoes as an inducement for them to sail to and from Australia during war. The government must also encourage greater investment in our national resilience. Currently, the biggest risk during a conflict is an interruption to the nation's liquid fuel supply. We must greatly expand our onshore reserves of fossil fuels in the short term, while initiating a nation-building project to electrify the economy in the long term. Electrification would eliminate a considerable vulnerability to national security. Additionally, the government should identify and subsidize vital industries, such as fertilizers and certain medicines, which are essential to the continued functioning of our society in the event of a war. This would reduce our reliance on imports of critical materials. Lastly, Australian industries, with the government's assistance, should further diversify their trading partners to reduce over-dependence on one or two main destinations. Trade is undoubtedly important to Australia and the government is correct to protect it. But it is also true that not all security problems are best answered by the military. This is particularly important since the size of our planned fleet is obviously insufficient for the enormous task it will face. Either Australia invests in impossibly large numbers of warships or it takes a different path. The art of war requires a balance between the desired ends and the means to achieve them. This simple statement underpins the formation of all good strategy, which a state ignores at its peril. Unfortunately, in the case of the nation's maritime plan, the ends and means are seriously out of whack. Instead of setting itself up for failure, the government needs to put aside its ineffectual maritime plan and choose the means that do align with the ends. Only then will it be possible to protect Australia's trade. Albert Palazzo is adjunct professor in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at UNSW Canberra, UNSW Sydney This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
DW
23-05-2025
- Climate
- DW
Massive floods wreak havoc in eastern Australia – DW – 05/23/2025
The storms have dumped more than six months' worth of rain over three days, authorities said, causing death and devastation. Incessant rain over the past three days has unleashed massive floods in eastern Australia, inundating streets, cutting off entire towns and destroying homes. Parts of New South Wales, Australia's most populous state, have been the worst hit by the fast-rising waters. The storms have dumped more than six months' worth of rain over three days, the government weather bureau has said. The government has declared a natural disaster, unlocking greater resources for affected areas Image: NSW State Emergency Service/Anadolu/picture alliance What do we know about the flood damage in New South Wales? The death toll from the floods rose to four on Friday. Four bodies have been pulled from the floodwater engulfing parts of northern New South Wales, a region some 400 kilometers (250 miles) up the coast from Sydney. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and New South Wales Premier Chris Minns visited some flood-affected areas on Friday. "These are horrific circumstances," Albanese said. "The Australian Defense Force will be made available. There's going to be a big recovery effort required," he told local radio. "There's been massive damage to infrastructure and we're going to have to all really pitch in." The government has declared a natural disaster, unlocking greater resources for affected areas. Australia has been facing more extreme weather events in recent years Image: NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE/HANDOUT/AFP Tens of thousands still stranded Waters started receding on Friday morning, but around 50,000 people still remain isolated, authorities said. Thousands of workers have been deployed on rescue and recovery missions, as well as clean-up operations. Officials also warned people returning to their flooded homes to watch out for dangers. "Floodwaters have contaminants. There can be vermin, snakes. You need to assess those risks," New South Wales State Emergency Service boss Dallas Burnes said. "Electricity can also pose a danger as well." Frequent extreme weather events Australia has been facing more extreme weather events in recent years that some experts say are happening because of climate change. According to the government weather bureau, the oceans surrounding the country have been "abnormally warm" over the past few months. Warmer seas lead to the evaporation of more moisture into the atmosphere, which can eventually cause more intense rains. Edited by: Saim Dušan Inayatullah
Newsweek
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
US Pacific Ally's Abrams Tanks Sent to Ukraine Despite Pentagon Concerns
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. U.S. officials have objected to the move by Australia to provide Ukraine with decommissioned Abrams tanks, it has been reported. The first of 49 of the tanks have been loaded onto cargo ships to be sent to Ukraine in a delivery which was confirmed by Australia's prime minister Anthony Albenese. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) said that Washington had warned Canberra about the difficulties of transferring Abrams tanks to Ukraine and the challenge of maintaining this equipment at the front. Newsweek has contacted the Australian foreign ministry and the Pentagon for comment. This image from March 25, in Avalon, Australia shows an Australian Defense Force (ADF) Abrams battle tank at the Avalon Australian International Airshow. This image from March 25, in Avalon, Australia shows an Australian Defense Force (ADF) Abrams battle tank at the Avalon Australian International It Matters While Kyiv welcomes the commitment of military support from Australia, its Abrams, which were big-ticket items in the U.S.'s package of military support during the Biden administration, have faced questions about their suitability. The Associated Press (AP) reported last year that Ukrainian forces were pulling the tanks from the front lines due to the high risk of detection by Russian drones although Kyiv denied the claim. What To Know Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese confirmed the delivery of the tanks when meeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Rome on Sunday although the date of their arrival was withheld for security reasons, ABC reported. Zelensky and Albanese also discussed Australia's potential participation in the Coalition of the Willing and post-war security guarantees for Ukraine. Australia had to wait for Washington's approval to export the U.S.-made tanks to a third country and while this was granted, American officials have expressed frustration about the move, according to ABC, citing an unnamed U.S. official. When the U.S. donated tanks to Ukraine in 2023, they were hoped to give Kyiv a valuable boost for combined arms maneuvers against Russia, however Western experts and Ukrainian officials raised questions about the quantity of the tanks and their problematic logistics. An Australian defense official told Australia's ABC said it was unclear whether Kyiv wanted the tanks given that the tank's roof is the weakest point of the vehicle and would be vulnerable in a drone war. What People Are Saying Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese after meeting Volodymyr Zelensky: "Russia's illegal aggression must be stopped, and we stand clearly and unequivocally on the side of Ukraine." A U.S. official to Australian outlet ABC: "we warned the Australians that sending these Abrams tanks would be complicated, and once they finally get to the battlefield the Ukrainians will find them difficult to sustain." What Happens Next Australia said it would send Ukraine the 49 M1A1 Abrams tanks as part of a broader military aid package in October 2024. Kyiv had previously received 31 Abrams tanks from the Biden administration in late 2023 although it is unclear how many are still operational as of 2025.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lockheed Pitches Containerized Launchers To Help Close Australia's Air And Missile Defense Gaps
Lockheed Martin wants containerized missile launchers to enhance a new overarching battle management architecture intended to help fill gaps in Australia's air and missile defenses. Containerized launchers might also offer Australia's armed forces new ways to engage targets on land and at sea, as well as in the air. Edward Dobeck, Director of Launching Systems at Lockheed Martin, talked about his company's work with the Australian Defense Force and what else it is doing relating to containerized launchers in an interview with TWZ's Howard Altman from the floor of the Navy League's Sea Air Space 2025 exhibition last week. 'So, we've been having a lot of good conversations with different countries in Europe and Asia about their need to provide launchers that are distributed,' Dobeck said. 'One of the most immediate [examples] is part of the Australia AIR6500 program. So we've been talking and giving them estimates specifically for containerized launching solutions as part of that.' Last year, Lockheed Martin received a contract valued at $500 million Australian dollars (roughly $312 U.S. dollars, at the present rate of exchange) to lead work on a new Joint Air Battle Management System as part of the first phase of the AIR6500 program. 'This system will provide [the Australian Department of] Defence with an advanced integrated air and missile defence capability, using next-gen technologies, to combat high-speed threats,' according to a press release put out in April 2024. No explicit mention was made of new launchers potentially being part of the AIR6500 plan at that time. AIR6500 is eventually expected to include a layered array of sensor and interceptor capabilities, as well as the command and control architecture linking it all together. The Australian Department of Defense had also released a major strategic review in 2023 that called for accelerating the acquisition of 'medium-range advanced and high-speed missile defence capabilities' and said that 'in-service, off-the-shelf options must be explored.' Australia's present air defense capabilities are currently limited to Swedish-designed RBS 70 short-range surface-to-air missiles, which can be employed from shoulder-fired and pedestal launchers, and the country's trio of Hobart class anti-air warfare-focused destroyers. The Australian Army is in the process of acquiring an enhanced version of the U.S.-Norwegian National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) that includes ground-based launchers for AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (ARMAAM) based on the 4×4 Hawkei vehicle. Containerized launchers from Lockheed Martin could be one off-the-shelf option for helping Australia's armed forces more readily acquire longer-range surface-to-air missile capabilities that it does not currently have. The Typhon system the company has developed for the U.S. Army, which includes four-round trailer-mounted containerized launchers derived from the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System, can fire the very capable SM-6, as well as Tomahawk cruise missiles. The SM-6 has the ability to engage a variety of air and missile threats, including a limited capability against hypersonic boost-glide vehicles in the terminal phase of flight. It can also be employed in a ballistic mode against targets at sea and on land. There is also Lockheed Martin's Mk 70 Expeditionary Launcher, also known as the Payload Delivery System, developed for the U.S. Navy. The Mk 70 is extremely similar in form and function to the launchers for the Army's Typhon system, and can also fire the SM-6. Lockheed Martin has also demonstrated the ability to fire the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptor originally developed for the Patriot surface-to-air missile system from the Mk 70 and, by extension, other Mk 41-derived launchers. Variants of the Mk 41 VLS are already in Royal Australian Navy service on Anzac class frigates and Hobart class destroyers, and will be part of the armament package on the country's forthcoming Hunter class frigates. In general, 'there is a very strong alignment between countries that have Mk 41[-equipped] navies and [ones] that have a desire to add additional cells and firepower to some of their vessels based on a containerized solution,' Lockheed Martin's Dobeck said. In addition, 'some of the countries that we've been talking to are much more interested in the land-based solution and providing that Mk 41 capability on land.' 'We continue to see a lot of international interest in the European and the Asian market for this kind of capability that's going to be able to bring them the tried and true capability of Mk 41 vertical launch in a containerized system,' he added. Australia's armed forces are set to get an up-close look at one of the U.S. Army's Typhon systems in action later this year. A live-fire shot from Typhon is currently planned to be part of this year's iteration of the biennial Talisman Sabre exercise. Typhon highlights the potential for new containerized launchers to bolster Australia's long-range land attack and anti-ship capabilities, as well as part of the future AIR6500 air and missile defense architecture. The Royal Australian Navy is now in the process of integrating Tomahawk onto its Hobart class destroyers and expects to arm its Hunter class frigates with those missiles, as well. Tomahawk is a core part of the arsenal on U.S. Virginia class nuclear-powered attack submarines, a number of which Australia is currently in line to receive through the trilateral Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) security cooperation agreement. The Australian military is otherwise looking to expand its land-based long-range strike capabilities through to acquisition of Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) short-range ballistic missiles from the United States. Loaded with Tomahawks, a containerized Mk 41-based launcher could hold targets on land and at sea at risk anywhere within a roughly 1,000-mile bubble around where it is deployed. The ability to launch SM-6s, PAC-3s, and potentially other missiles would only increase their operational flexibility. Containerized launchers have additional benefits when it comes to speed and distribution of deployment, as well as personnel and logistical footprints, especially if networked to a larger command and control architecture. The capabilities offered by a new array of containerized launch systems could be particularly valuable for Australia, which has extensive coastlines to defend at a time when the Chinese military is becoming assertive in its part of the Pacific. Australia's armed forces would also benefit from these capabilities in the event they join other allies and partners in expeditionary operations, especially elsewhere in the broad expanses of the Indo-Pacific in response to any number of contingencies. What role containerized missile launchers might play in Australia's future AIR6500 plans remains to be seen, but they could be on the horizon for the country's armed forces beyond the air and missile defense role, as well. Howard Altman contributed to this story. Contact the author: joe@
Al Arabiya
10-04-2025
- Business
- Al Arabiya
AUKUS nuclear submarine sale under scrutiny as Trump tariffs shake Australia
The sale of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia under the AUKUS treaty faces new doubts as US President Donald Trump's tariffs take hold, and amid concern in Washington that providing the subs to Canberra may reduce deterrence to China. Whether the United States can boost submarine production to meet US Navy targets is key to whether Australia can buy three Virginia-class submarines starting in 2032, Defense Minister Richard Marles said last month, after talks with his US counterpart, Pete Hegseth. Australia faces a previously unreported 2025 deadline to pay the United States $2 billion to assist with improving its submarine shipyards. The Trump administration has asked for more funding, Marles said in March. Consternation is growing in Washington that Australia's reluctance to even discuss using the attack submarines against China means that transferring them out of the US fleet to Australia would hurt deterrence efforts in the Indo Pacific, according to experts and documents. 'If you want to deter conflict, in peacetime you need to talk about using it in wartime and we haven't seen a willingness yet on the part of the Australians, government or officials, to make that kind of threat,' said former US Navy strategist Bryan Clark, director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute, who is advising the Australian Defense Force on force design. In a previously unreported recent multilateral war game simulating a response by US allies to a Chinese blockade of Taiwan, Australian Defense Force commanders did not use nuclear-powered submarines in the South China Sea to attack Chinese targets, instead focusing on protecting Australia's northern approaches with airpower, drones and missiles, said Clark, who ran the exercise. The distance from China made an airpower and surface fleet approach less risky, and the submarines were instead placed in areas near Australia where enemy ships might transit, Clark said in an online briefing. These concerns were echoed in a US Congressional Budget Office report in February and testimony on Navy shipbuilding delays in March, in which officials said selling Virginia-class subs out of the fleet to Australia without replacements was risky because Canberra had not made it clear whether its military would join the US in a conflict over Taiwan. The question has taken on added urgency, as the US Navy in September set a deadline of 2027 for its forces to be prepared for a conflict with China. China's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. Peter Dean, director of foreign policy and defense at the University of Sydney's United States Studies Centre, said he would expect Australia and the United States to operate submarines in different areas in a regional conflict. 'If it's a Taiwan contingency, the US will be concentrating its forces in the east and South China Sea around Taiwan. Australia may not be directly involved,' said Dean, co-author of Australia's Defense Strategic Review, which led the Albanese government to refocus its military in 2023 and priorities long-range strike missiles. Australia's priority is to protect its mainland as a forward operating base for US forces, he said. Clark told Reuters that nuclear workforce shortages and budget constraints in Australia would most likely delay the submarine sale. 'US and UK submarines operating out of Perth with dual crews, and the Australian-operated maintenance facility, would provide a deterrent to aggression and keep Australia's preparations for its own nuclear submarines on track,' he said. He has also advised Canberra to focus on uncrewed systems. The Australian Submarine Agency said acquiring nuclear submarines was a key part of Australia's defense strategy of denial, and 'will be equipped for intelligence, surveillance, undersea warfare and strike missions'. A Pentagon spokesperson said the Defense Department was committed to 'our phased plan for Australia to acquire conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines at the earliest possible date', including the sale of Virginia submarines. A US National Security Council spokesman said 'The US continues to work closely with Australia and the UK to implement AUKUS'. Domestic politics could also weigh on AUKUS, despite strong support from the major Australian parties, as disappointment that defense ties didn't win Australia exemptions from Trump's tariffs has put the program under unprecedented public scrutiny. A national election on May 3 could result in a hung parliament that gives independent lawmakers - who are skeptical of Trump and have called for a review of the submarine deal - more power. AUKUS is projected to span three decades: A rotating force of four US-commanded Virginia submarines and one British submarine hosted at Western Australia's HMAS Stirling starting in 2027, with mixed US and Australian maintenance and crew; the sale of Virginia submarines to Australian command from 2032; and an AUKUS submarine built by Australia and Britain ready in 2040. Australia needs to buy the Virginias because relying on a US-commanded fleet until 2040 would be 'outsourcing our defense to another country to a level that is not acceptable,' Dean said. Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who clinched the AUKUS treaty in 2021, said in an interview that the threat posed by China and the deterrent of Australia operating nuclear-powered submarines in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean drove the agreement. 'China is the threat - of course they are - and that is what needs to be deterred,' Morrison said. 'The idea of more US and more British boats being in and around Australia, and on station in Australia, in the theatre, we always knew that would bring the earlier deterrent,' he added. Australia's plan to purchase Virginia submarines was added to AUKUS by Labor in 2023. Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, elected in 2022, has been less willing to publicly criticize China, even as Australia's air force and navy continue freedom of navigation patrols in the South China Sea. This has become a point of political attack in the election campaign for Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton, who was defense minister in Morrison's government. 'The Chinese made a big effort for us not to proceed with AUKUS precisely because they saw the deterrence effect,' said Arthur Sinodonis, Australia's ambassador in Washington as AUKUS was negotiated. 'There is a deterrent, whether the stuff is in the US column or the Australian column.'
