Latest news with #NavalOperations
News.com.au
29-07-2025
- Business
- News.com.au
‘Worrying': Naval chief warns US must double submarine construction to meet AUKUS commitments
The United States will need to double its construction rate of attack submarines in order to meet its AUKUS commitments to Australia and the UK, Donald Trump's nominee to lead the US Navy has warned. Admiral Daryl Caudle, speaking before his Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing on Thursday to become Chief of Naval Operations, said at the current rate of construction he was not sure the US could supply three Virginia-class nuclear submarines to Australia as required under Pillar 1 of the AUKUS agreement. The AUKUS deal, signed in 2021, is currently under review by the US Department of Defense. Adm. Caudle said the Pentagon-wide review was about US industrial capacity, and not the capability of Australian submariners. 'The question of Australia's ability to conduct undersea warfare is not in question by me or by anyone,' Adm. Caudle told Senators, per USNI News. 'But as you know, the delivery pace is not where it needs to be to make good on the Pillar 1 of the AUKUS agreement, which is currently under review by our Defense Department.' The AUKUS deal would see the US share its nuclear propulsion technology for only the second time in history, selling up to five Virginia-class boats to Australia while helping Canberra develop domestic capability to build and maintain its own nuclear-powered attack submarines. To meet its obligations, Navy officials have said US industrial base must build 2.33 Virginia-class attack boats per year. It currently builds about 1.3 per year. 'We do have to understand whether or not the industrial base can produce the submarines required so that we can make good on the actual pact that we made with the UK and Australia, which is around 2.2, 2.3 Virginia-class submarines per year,' Adm. Caudle told Democratic Senator Tim Kaine. 'That's going to require a transformational improvement — not a 10 per cent improvement, not a 20 per cent, a 100 per cent improvement. We need a transformational improvement and the ability to deliver twice the capacity that we're currently delivering.' Adm. Caudle said the US would likely need to work with international allies and partners to build and maintain its fleet while it built up its domestic industrial capacity. 'I don't know how we do what we need to do without bringing international partners into the capacity problem that we have while we build up our capacity because we need ships today,' he told Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville. 'And so there are no magic beans to that. There's nothing that's just going to make that happen. So the solution space has got to open up, and I think part of that has to look at international partnerships to give us a little bit of a relief valve while we work on our own organic industrial capacity.' Committee chairman Roger Wicker, a Republican, stressed the need to fulfil the US's AUKUS commitments. 'There needs to be some creativity, some ingenuity, some outsourcing improvements,' Adm. Caudle agreed. 'We need an all-hands-on-deck approach to this to get to the 2.3 submarines per year.' Adm. Caudle told the committee in his written testimony that 'current trends are worrying, and should I be confirmed, this issue will have my utmost attention and priority to ensure a productive outcome'. 'If confirmed, I will support the Department of Defense's review of the AUKUS Security Pact with my best military advice,' he said. Adm. Caudle warned in his opening statement that 'years of shrinking fleet size and diminished shipbuilding capacity and on time repair delivery execution have manifested themselves as persistent challenges, previously masked by unquestioned naval supremacy throughout the last three decades'. 'As China continues to grow its naval strength and the potential for peer naval conflict grows at a steady pace each passing day, the veil is slowly lifting on the impacts of poor choices made decades ago, which leveraged a perceived myopic peace dividend, that now pressurises and oversubscribes our decision space for choices we face today,' he said. To achieve this, Adm. Caudle said he would 'relentlessly pursue full-spectrum readiness — modernising our fleet's capabilities, scaling readiness capacity, and aggressively forging our resilient and resourceful sailors who bring all our combat power to life'. The AUKUS review, led by Undersecretary of Defense Policy Elbridge Colby — who had expressed scepticism of the deal while out of government — was announced on June 11, sparking concerns about the future of the pact. Mr Colby recently made headlines when it was revealed he was pressuring the Australian and Japanese governments to reveal what they would do if China invaded Taiwan. Last week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed Australia had sent another $800 million to the US as part of the AUKUS 'schedule' despite the review. The new payment took the total to $1.6 billion. 'There is a schedule of payments to be made, we have an agreement with the United States as well as with the United Kingdom,' Mr Albanese told ABC's Afternoon Briefing. 'It is about increasing the capacity, their industrial capacity, and as part of that, we have Australians on the ground, learning the skills so that when it comes to the SSN-AUKUS, the submarines being built here in Australia, we have those skills.' Defence Minister Richard Marles earlier confirmed the report saying 'the payments are occurring in line with Australia's commitment to contribute $US2 billion by the end of 2025, which underscores our commitment to the successful delivery of AUKUS Pillar 1 outcomes'. The new payment came as Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said he was 'worried' about the government's position on defence. 'I worry that the government — I think it's not just me worried, I think every expert looking at this is making these comments — they're deeply worried that we're not on our way to having the defence force we need in such an uncertain time,' Mr Taylor said. 'We've got authoritarian regimes around the world flexing their muscles.' The AUKUS deal is a long-term arrangement that will cost upwards of $268 billion, and as much as $368 billion, over the next 30 years. The review comes as the Trump administration expresses growing concerns about Australia's defence spending. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has made it clear the US expects Canberra to lift its defence budget to 3.5 per cent of GDP, up from roughly 2 per cent currently, or around $56 billion in 2024-25. Mr Marles said in May that he had told his counterpart 'this is a conversation that we are very willing to have'.
UPI
24-07-2025
- Politics
- UPI
Naval chief nominee says U.S. Navy needs sailors, ships, new weapons
1 of 3 | Admiral Daryl Caudle looks on during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on his nomination to be Chief of Naval Operations at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo July 24 (UPI) -- The U.S. Navy needs to complete its shipbuilding program and modernize its weapons systems to effectively address the nation's defense needs, Adm. Daryl Caudle told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Committee members questioned Caudle on Thursday morning to consider his nomination for Chief of Naval Operations and reappointment to the grade of admiral. "I view this nomination as a solemn opportunity to ensure the nation's maritime dominance never is surpassed by competitors or adversaries," Caudle told the committee during his opening comments. "Our sailors are the Navy's most enduring competitive advantage," Caudle said. "A stronger Navy means a more effective fleet." He said his father was an Army veteran who served in the Korean War and passed on the importance of service to protect American families and their way of life from harm. Recruitment standards, shipbuilding Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said the Navy has lowered its recruitment standards in recent years to enable more people to join its ranks. He asked how Caudle might ensure the Navy does not permanently rely on lowered standards. Caudle said the Navy has not lowered its standards but instead has increased access. "All that graduate from boot camp meet the rigorous standards of that course to the letter," he told Wicker. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said the Navy has an "overdue" 30-year shipbuilding plan that has not been followed and asked if Caudle would undertake a shipbuilding program to increase the Navy's size and visibility. Caudle said King has his "complete commitment" to the Navy shipbuilding program. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., also raised the matter of the 30-year shipbuilding program and asked if Caudle would commit to completing the program in a timely manner and on budget. Caudle affirmed he would do so and cited the Navy's nuclear submarine program as especially important for ensuring the nation does its part to fulfill strategic agreements with other nations. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., raised concerns about the Navy's force structure design to deter other nuclear powers that are threatening the United States and the world. Caudle called the matter a "math problem" and said he will work closely with Strategic Command to address growing threats from China and other nations to maximize the Navy's effectiveness. Munitions and maintenance Fischer also asked what the Navy could do to ensure it has an ample supply of munitions to quickly replace those that are expended during naval operations. King said the Navy has "way too many sole-source vendors that are underproducing" munitions due to difficulties with obtaining the materials needed to make them. "We need to work through that," King said, adding that the Navy needs to streamline production for greater efficiency. "We roll a Ford F-150 off the assembly line every 20 hours, but it takes greater than a year to build an SM-6" missile, he added. "It's just unacceptable." Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, asked about drydock construction in Hawaii and what Caudle would do to complete an under-construction drydock there on time to ensure Naval vessels can use it for maintenance and repairs. Caudle called the drydock a national asset and said he shares Hirono's concern regarding the importance of the drydock and getting it completed for as close to its budget as possible. Weapons systems modernization Sen. Ted Budd, R-N.C., asked how Caudle might incorporate unmanned weapons systems to counter naval growth among the nation's potential adversaries. "There is no question that unmanned robotic autonomous systems will be part of any modern warfare going forward," Caudle answered. He said they are used in the Russia-Ukraine war, in space and Middle East conflicts. "We're all learning from this," he said. "Everyone is, including our adversaries." He said the Navy must invest in robotic autonomous weapons systems and ensure the command structure and operational systems are in place to maximize their effectiveness. During his questioning, King suggested directed-energy weapons are the "future" of naval warfare and asked Caudle what his position might be regarding their development and use. "A directed-energy shot is much cheaper than a $4 million missile," but the Biden administration "grossly underfunded" development of the weapons system, King said. Caudle responded that his master's degree is in directed energy and his thesis was on high-powered lasers. "I've not seen the Navy do an adequate amount of effort translating the research and development into shipboard use," he said. "If confirmed, I will make that a priority because it is the infinite magazine, especially against certain targets," Caudle said. "Admiral, you just got my vote," King responded. The morning confirmation hearing lasted for more than two hours. Before the confirmation hearing, Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., met with Caudle and in a news release said the admiral "knows a stronger Navy means a safer America." Caudle is a four-star admiral and would replace former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti. If confirmed, Caudle would control a naval fleet that is 14 times smaller than the Chinese fleet and has experienced costly shipbuilding delays, according to Politico. This week in Washington House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., speaks during a press conference after the House passed the GENIUS Act at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday. The act, which passed with a bipartisan vote, outlines the first federal rules for stablecoins, a popular form of digital currency. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
03-06-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Operation Sindoor: For India, deterrence lies in hard military power
Operation Sindoor has proved that conventional power, wielded with precision, can eliminate threats and convey a message without the attendant fear of a mushroom cloud read more From Left to Right: Air Marshal AK Bharti, Director General (DG) of Air Force Operations, DG of Military Operations Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai, and DG of Naval Operations, Vice Admiral AN Pramod at a press briefing for Operation Sindoor. May 11, 2025. File image. After 88 hours of clinical and precision strikes, the Indian Armed Forces, who had been given full 'operational freedom', achieved their objectives in a calibrated, controlled and decisive manner. What also stood out in an era of unending conflicts was the wise drawing of a finish line. Operation 'Sindoor' represented an evolution in our war-fighting doctrine, showcasing the capability and ability of our Armed Forces. There was a marked escalation in the scope, intensity and precision targeting compared to India's earlier responses to terror attacks. Soon after the prime minister articulated India's 'new normal'. The doctrine was clear and unambiguous. This watershed moment marked the unveiling of a new national security posture, one that treats state-sponsored terrorism as an act of war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Parliament, Mumbai, Pathankot, Uri, Pulwama and now Pahalgam all had one thing in common: Pakistan's use of terror as an instrument of state policy, but now the Indian armed forces had drawn the 'sindoor line' and targeted terror sites in the heartland of Pakistani Punjab, literally going for Pakistan's 'jugular'. The fact is that India's actions were aimed at forcing Pakistan to change its behaviour as far as using terrorism as an instrument of state policy is concerned. The question remains as to whether our political will and military action have ensured deterrence. Understanding Deterrence The challenge of deterrence, implying discouraging states from taking unwanted actions, especially military aggression, is a principal theme of a nation's defence policy. In his press briefing after the initial operation, the Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri stated that Pakistan's failure 'to take action against the terrorist infrastructure on its territory' necessitated a military operation 'to deter and to preempt'. Deterrence can be further amplified as the practice of discouraging or restraining someone in world politics, usually a nation-state, from taking unwanted actions. It involves an effort to stop or prevent an action, as opposed to the closely related but distinct concept of 'compellence', which is an effort to force it to do something. If a state considers attacking an adversary but refrains due to concern over that adversary's military power, it has been deterred. Deterrence typically takes two forms: deterrence by denial and deterrence by punishment. Deterrence by denial strategies seeks to deter an action by making it infeasible or unlikely to succeed, thus denying a potential aggressor confidence in attaining its objectives by deploying sufficient local military forces to defeat a design, in other words, convincing an adversary that its attack would be unsuccessful because it would be physically blocked. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Whereas deterrence by punishment, on the other hand, threatens severe penalties if an attack occurs. It is based on the threat of imposing costs through retaliation. Steps taken include placing significant military capabilities directly in the path of an aggressor, which speaks loudly and clearly. Deterrence is usually unnoticed by the public since it is about preventing aggression rather than taking visible action. However, crises reveal where and how deterrence is failing or succeeding, since visible military decisions are now made public. India earlier deterred terror attacks attributed to militants based in Pakistan by threatening a conventional military response. Following the Parliament attack India mobilized its troops all across the border with Pakistan. As per Jaswant Singh 'the objective of India's mobilisation was to defeat cross border terrorism and infiltration without conflict'. Pakistan, in turn, looked to prevent retaliatory conventional military action through the threat of nuclear weapons. The fact is that if these terrorist incidents keep happening at a regular pace followed by India's retaliation, it suggests there were gaps in deterrence. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The failure of deterrence has led to leaders and policymakers sometimes referring to military operations as being designed to 'restore deterrence'. However, even this can be a misleading phrase, as Professor Debak Das of the University of Denver states, 'There may be something wrong with the method of deterrence'. Over the coming weeks and months, analysts and policymakers will assess how successful both sides' military operations were in restoring deterrence, a key question with the potential to shape regional security dynamics going forward. Nuclear Deterrence The most powerful deterrent a state can possess is nuclear weapons. Soon after the development of nuclear weapons, scholars argued that these capabilities were so powerful that no two nuclear-armed states would dare to fight one another. In other words, they would be deterred from doing so. But while nuclear weapons may ensure stable deterrence at the strategic or nuclear level, instability and conflict are likely to occur at lower levels because both sides believe in controlling escalation till that point. This led to Pakistan feeling there was space to conduct a sub-conventional proxy war against India. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India has taken action to punish Pakistan militarily in response to terror attacks. Notable examples have included Operation Parakram in 2001; the development of the Cold Start military doctrine intended to quickly capture territory to extract concessions; 'surgical strikes' across the Line of Control in 2016; and the airstrike at Balakot in 2019. Each response pushed the envelope further both vertically and horizontally, displaying the ability to impose costs within a nuclear overhang. Following Pahalgam, India dramatically increased the scope of its military action against Pakistan in response to terrorism. This represented an expansion in its willingness to conduct conventional operations beneath the nuclear threshold. Operation Sindoor has proved that conventional power, wielded with precision, can eliminate threats and convey a message without the attendant fear of a mushroom cloud. Pakistan's military-backed terrorist groups would no longer be able to operate with impunity, secure in the knowledge that India won't risk nuclear escalation. Pakistan's space for nuclear deterrence has been shrunk due to India's non-contact kinetic actions facilitated by newer technologies. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Escalation During Operation Sindoor What was witnessed were multiple rounds of retaliation, including strikes on major military bases, and the use of capabilities never previously employed between the two countries. On the opening day of strikes, the Indian Armed Forces demonstrated the ability to identify and destroy terrorist-linked infrastructure in Pakistani territory, employing stand-off weapons to deliver precision strikes at speed without crossing the international border. The intent was clear: India was focused on degrading the terrorist ecosystem that exists in Pakistan. In the following days, operations expanded in scope, as Pakistan chose to retaliate, and India then penetrated Pakistan's Chinese-supplied air defence network to target selected airbases for the first time since the 1971 war. Further India's multi-layered air defence ensured the security of Indian airspace by eliminating Pakistani drones and missiles. Operation Sindoor was a calibrated use of force, intended to signal resolve, degrade terrorist infrastructure, demonstrate capability, and impose costs for supporting terrorism. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Escalation control depends on taking carefully calibrated actions in the fog of war. As per Walter Ladwig of RUSI, 'This conflict illustrates that limited military engagement under the shadow of nuclear weapons can be contained provided escalation thresholds are mutually understood, signalling remains disciplined, and objectives are narrowly defined.' Application of Military Power Operation Sindoor demonstrated India's ability to apply military power with restraint and precision. India's signal of intent to retaliate against cross-border terrorism marks a clear shift in posture. Yet deterrence by punishment carries inherent risks – chief among them the possibility that fringe actors may attempt to provoke confrontation in order to manipulate state responses. Hence, in a strategic environment shaped by tempo, perception, and public pressure, preserving space for discretion may be as vital as projecting resolve, particularly when domestic audiences may expect increasingly forceful responses in the wake of future provocations. Equally salient is the operational challenge of maintaining the effectiveness of coercive military action over time. As targeted groups adapt, dispersing their assets, improving their concealment techniques, and altering their operational rhythms, the demands placed on India's intelligence and targeting means will intensify. An iterative contest of adaptation may also play out in which each side seeks to outpace the other's capacity for detection and response. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Conclusion As the damage to Pakistani assets increased and their vulnerabilities were exposed, the Pakistani DGMO reached out over the hotline to his Indian counterpart in asking for a ceasefire. There was no doubt that India had achieved its stated objectives. Its decisive response was not a product of improvisation but due to the professionalism of Indian armed forces and the result of structural reforms and investment in India's defence capabilities to include doctrines, weapon systems and infusion of cutting-edge technologies. The contours of its response toolkit had been redefined. The instrument of force was now more calibrated and precise. There is no doubt that in future, India's response in degrading assets enabling terrorism will be of a greater magnitude. Given the fact that India was able to use force over a long trajectory and attack Pakistan at will with precision and lethality, degrading its capabilities. One of the lessons that stands out is that hard power matters, though building deterrence through hard power may be costly, but wars are even more costly, which is a lesson Europe is facing presently, having prematurely celebrated victory at the end of the Cold War by downsizing military structures and capabilities. Hence, there needs to be an urgency while addressing military imbalances, as despite being tactically and operationally successful, we cannot afford to be prone to coercion. Hard military power is the key. While India has demonstrated its muscular policy, the instrument of force needs to be continuously nourished to ensure that it always retains the element of deterrence. The author is a retired Major General of the Indian Army. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
India Today
26-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Words of war: Kinetic vs non-kinetic warfare
At a high-stakes military briefing following India's Operation Sindoor, senior officials, including the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) and Deputy Head of Naval Operations (DGNO), repeatedly used the phrase 'kinetic domain' while outlining India's response to the Pahalgam terror why are military leaders suddenly invoking what sounds like physics terminology during a war briefing?The term kinetic—from the Greek word kintikos, meaning 'motion'—has increasingly become a part of military In military-speak, kinetic refers to direct, physical force—actions we typically associate with conventional warfare: bullets, bombs, artillery fire, missile strikes, and air raids. These are tangible, destructive operations where the damage is visible and why use the term at all? Because in the modern theatre of conflict, not all warfare is visible. Kinetic helps distinguish physical attacks from a different category known as non-kinetic measures—subtler forms of state action that can be just as damaging but don't involve traditional weaponry. These include:CyberattacksPower grid disruptionsEconomic sanctionsDiplomatic pressureIn the wake of the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, India took several non-kinetic steps, such as:1. Shutting down the Attari-Wagah border checkpost2. Restricting entry of Pakistani nationals3. Expelling Pakistani High Commission staff4. Suspending the Indus Waters TreatyadvertisementEach of these actions was intended to damage the adversary without a single shot being fired—coercive, but came Operation Sindoor, where India moved into the kinetic domain:1. Precision strikes on nine terror-linked targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir2. Artillery bombardment across the Line of Control3. Counterattacks on Pakistani drones and radar systems4. Missile and air strikes on Pakistani air basesAs Lt. General Rajiv Ghai put it, these were kinetic actions—and their impact was unmistakable and visible to the world.
Mint
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
India says terror tactics shifted in last few years, ‘civilians being targeted': ‘Pahalgam tak paap…'
Director General Military Operations (DGMO) Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai stated at a special media briefing on Monday afternoon that the nature of terrorist activities has changed in recent years, with a disturbing shift towards targeting civilians. Citing the recent Pahalgam terror attack, in which 26 civilians—mostly tourists—lost their lives, he remarked, 'Pahalgam tak paap ka ye ghada bhar chuka tha [When it reached Pahalgam, the cup of sins had already overflowed]" DGMO Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai said, 'In the last few years, the character of terrorist activities have changed. Innocent civilians were being attacked… 'Pahalgam tak paap ka ye ghada bhar chuka tha'.' Lt. Gen. Rajiv Ghai said the terrorists have increasingly begun targeting innocent civilians, citing recent attacks such as the 2024 attack on pilgrims en route to the Shivkhori temple in Jammu in 2024. He said Pahalgam terror attack was recent example of alarming shift in terrorist tactics. India also reiterated the Indian military forces, during Operation Sindoor, only targeted the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) on May 7, and Pakistan is itself responsible for the losses it incurred. 'India's fight was only with the terrorists and not Pakistan's military. Unfortunately, Pakistan's military chose to side with terrorists…They are themselves responsible for their losses. Since we attacked them across the border, we had expected attacks on is. We kept our air defence ready,' Air Marshal AK Bharti said. Air Marshal Bharti also revealed that a Chinese-origin PL-15 missile, which missed its target, was intercepted, with its debris recovered by Indian forces. Additionally, a long-range rocket, loitering munitions, and other unmanned aerial systems (UAS) deployed by Pakistan were successfully brought down. Director General Naval Operations Vice Admiral AN Pramod was also present at the briefing.
