This podcast is coming from the USA but let’s start with the review of the Australian Submarine Agency which came to light last week. This will be conducted by Dennis Richardson, one of the most pro-US people in the national security domain – so don’t be expecting any changes to the objectives of AUKUS Pillar One, just some fine tuning of methods.
Next is an update of the F-35 program and the Block 4 upgrade, which has been installed on Australia’s final nine aircraft and will be retrofitted to the entire fleet. Let’s compare them with the capabilities of a Virginia class submarine – and 6 or 7 F-35s can deliver as many weapons as a single SSN. A submarine goes to sea with 40 weapons on board for a three month mission. F-35s can fly backwards and forwards, refuel and rearm – and continue attacking enemy targets day after day. Submarines are limited to the weapons they have when they leave port. Which is better value for money? Finally a few words on the end of the Assad regime in Syria: it won’t be missed.
To listen to the podcast, click here.
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at simon.hadfield@venturamedia.net
Surely one of the worst mistakes in Defence in the last decade, and there are many, was the choice of the Type 26 Power Point presentation over actual in the water ships.
FREMM was my choice but modified Hobarts would still have been better than a glorified computer model.
It’s nice finally to get the names of some of the culprits.
This is not even to get into whether we should have replaced the ANZAC’s with something of similar size (as SEA 3000’s very existence seems to indicate) rather than much larger ASW focused ships.
The flow on effects of that bad decision are many and have placed our defence in a much worse position, just to start with we have fewer ships in the water now than we did in 2018 and the numbers will drop rather than increase until the early 2030’s.
Also, a spot on observation that aircraft (I prefer bombers in an Australian context, remember the F111?) as offering far more flexibility and cost effectiveness over submarines, nuclear or otherwise. The same is also true in an ASW context I would think.
Where is a comprehensive Defence Strategy that is adhered to by all rather than undermined by vested interests?
Also Kym I would like to bring to your attention the Hanwha Tigon 6×6 vehicle, proposed by Hanwha to a Malaysian contest in 2020. Why, if we need 450 vehicles for the Army but are unwilling to spend a great deal of money on bespoke tracked Redback’s can we not switch to a greater number of wheeled APC’s from the same excellent manufacturer?
Thanks again for an excellent podcast.
The problem proponents of AirPower over Sea Power is , they neglect to factor in Range and time on station. The F35 is an exceptionally good Aeroplane BUT its Combat Range is well under 1,500 klms (even the aging Collins had a much longer combat range ), plus Pilot Fatigue is rarely taken into account and yes they can be refuelled in the air but that makes the Refuelling Aircraft prime Targets. Now the B2 or B21 Bomber is an intriguing prospect its range is listed as 11,000 klms. I’m not a supporter of AUKUS (especially of buying Virginias) but to surmise that the F35 is a better option than any submarine is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps the RAN can achieve its objectives without a Nuclear Boat, I believe they could.The RAAF will always have an important role in the Defence of Australia but let’s not get carried away.