is the US navy unbeatable???

The same thing happened in WWII with Japanese depth charges. Some idiot politician spouted off about how Japanese depth charges weren't going deep enough, and weren't big enough to sink our subs. So they made them bigger and sent them deeper and our losses went up.

Nothing is unbeatable.

In December 2000, 2 Russian aircraft (su-24 striker and su-27 fighter) came right up on a CBG of over a dozen ships, totally by surprise, by simply going under the radar horizon.

Sending out heaps of subs is another good tactic.

Originally posted by Manincloak
Nothing is unbeatable.

In December 2000, 2 Russian aircraft (su-24 striker and su-27 fighter) came right up on a CBG of over a dozen ships, totally by surprise, by simply going under the radar horizon.

Can you give us more details than that? Where etc. Perhaps a link ??????

I'm not sure about surface warfare, but I think we can whip butt with our Silent Service.

Subs rock.

Wish we could get a look at the Seawolf-class boats.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by justin_barton3
Okay then. if a US navy task force lost 6 ships, had 10 ships seriously damaged and lost 34 aircraft then it would be major news worldwide.

Justin

It was.....hence why we now have phalanx...

I read a book by a guy who captained a ship in the falklands. From what he said the main problem was with the ineffectiveness of the British anti air missiles.

Justin

Originally posted by AmenToArtillery
Considering the Infantry is to be made up of those 70-80% of potential SEAL's that didnt gain their Tridents... Yeah, they washed out of BUD/s but that doesnt mean that they wont make good soldiers, simply means that they didnt have what it takes to make it through our countries most intense training regime.

Plus, if you consider the fact of how highly and actively we train our M.S.F detachments (which are primarly made up of standard-rate MAA's), then it makes the possibility of a SpecOps eqiuvlent Infantry even more likely.

I wouldn't call the SEALs the most intensive training regime. That of Air Force Pararescueman and Air Combat Controllers, and SF soldiers who go through SCUBA school, is just as intense. Spec Ops is Spec-Ops, they're all very hardcore.

But I did not mean to give the impression that they would not make good soldiers. What I meant was that to give such soldier skills that are equivalent of the Special Forces will be very difficult, with how much the Navy would have to learn.

I am sure plenty of Special Forces soldiers and Rangers could have been Navy SEALs too if they had wanted to, but if the Army was to start a water-based Spec-Ops team, it would have a lot to learn from the Navy. Think Rangers. I am sure Rangers could be made into SEALs if needed, but the Army would have to learn a LOT first before doing so, unless the Navy just said "Well teach them."

Navy SEALs are the kings of water and maritime operations, whereas SF are the kings of operations requiring one to blend in with the local population and live deep inland for months at a time.

Army SF has its SCUBA teams, but the Army's Combat Diver Qualification Course copies a lot what it knows right off of the SEAL BUD/s program, so that the Army doesn't have to re-learn everything the SEALs already know. And the SEALs maintain an instructor at the CDQC to learn anything the Army might discover (the Army keeps an instructor at BUD/s too).

If the Navy wants to make an Infantry that is equivalent skills-wise to SF, they're going to have to copy a lot of what the Army knows or the Navy will have to re-learn it. Also, they have to remember that these Infantry still did fail out of Spec-Ops, and SF is Spec-Ops, so I doubt these soldiers would be of the same physical and mental caliber as SF.

Another thing to remember is what guys of the SEAL training will be used for the Infantry? I am sure there's a difference between Joe Schmoe sailor who quits after a day or so of BUD/s training and a guy who makes it through the first week, but quits or fails the second week for whatever reason.

Originally posted by blackthorne
having been aboard 2 ships and shore duty in an 8.5 year stint, i would say that we do have the best ships in the world. and for the most part, the best men and women for crew.

[

If you read the article you would have noticed it mentioning that 10 000 American navy personal have tested positive for banned substances between i think 2001 and 2003. If you think you can build the best navy in the world on that basis i imagine we have different standards entirely. History has shown that numbers rarely wins the day when it's all you bring to the party.

and if i remember correctly, just before this engagement in iraq, there was a think tank at a war college that ran simulations on our fleet entering the straits of hormuz. in this simulation at a choke point, they had shore based enemies low teching their movements and communications. using easily mobile surface missiles, they did pretty good damage to our fleet.

Well the 'red force' commander 'sank' the American fleet and while your on to something i think i may be able to help you get the full picture ( as far as i know).

The Immutable Nature of War

Wake-up call

Ex-General: War Game Rigged

War games rigged?

The carrier myth

still we do have the best, but pride and hubris goes before a fall.
there can be only one!

While overestimating the enemy might rob you of initiative underestimating him will often just kill you.

Stellar

[edit on 18-3-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by justin_barton3
I read a book by a guy who captained a ship in the falklands. From what he said the main problem was with the ineffectiveness of the British anti air missiles.

Justin

Yes hence why we have the phalanx, I've worked with a PO in the SCC who served on one of the ships in the falklands taht was sunk.

Originally posted by StellarXIf you read the article you would have noticed it mentioning that 10 000 American navy personal have tested positive for banned substances between i think 2001 and 2003. If you think you can build the best navy in the world on that basis i imagine we have different standards entirely. History has shown that numbers rarely wins the day when it's all you bring to the party.

If you can find me 300,000 people, primarily starting at age 18, and most of them leaving by age 22, many of whom this is thier first time away from home, and have no drug use among any of them, I'll gladly buy you a plane ticket over here to tell our recruiters where they ought to be looking.

Originally posted by StellarXWhile overestimating the enemy might rob you of initiative underestimating him will often just kill you.

Stellar

You have my total agreement there!

Wheels, I'd imagine that those selected for the Infantry would be those who washed out further into training or those who perhaps dropped due to medical reasons (injuries and the like, as I believe that you can only go to BUD/s in set intervals of time, a year perhaps?)... I could be wrong of course as being a Sailor myself, I know next to nothing about the plans.

Nonetheless, I understand what you're saying and you are indeed probably right in most respects... The more I think about it now though, the article did say it was really all about re-aquiring a combat capable unit (like the Marines). Depending on the operations they will be tasked with, I can see the Infantry being taught directly by the Navy, or perhaps the training would be a more intense MAA-style training, with a fixation on combat instead of law. A bit like what we're doing with the M.S.F detachments, yet, as you said about learning from other branches - M.S.F does indeed cross-train with the Marines who their heavy weapon quals. I suppose we'll just have to see what happens in the end, eh?

Originally posted by JamesinOz
The Falklands incurred greater losses on both sides that I was aware of, so perhaps not just a skirmish. As I understand it the Exocet's did a lot more damage than was expected at the time and underscored the danger that these types of weapons pose to modern naval forces.

Far more than was expected and had they had more than six( it's what i remember reading at least) of them who knows how many ships they may have sunk.

Imo, flashpoints for possible naval battles in the medium term future might be in the Straits of Malacca and the Eastern Mediteranean.

Anything around choke points ( Panama/Suez/Malacca) is going to be very interesting and especially so due to the land based threat that is modern ASM's

In the Straits of Malacca it could be China vs USN/allied navies and I'd imagine submarines would play a big role in any such conflict which would be over a Chinese naval blockade of trade routes.

It was very interesting to see American marines swarming over Bande Aceh within 5 days after the Tsunami with pictures of them holding weapons from abandoned police/military installations..... I am still wondering where they so quickly found the strike elements ( extra troops and Helli's) to deploy so fast and why the Marine commander who led the entry into Baghdad , as i recall, happened to be in charge. But then it's not like it's not a rather important peace of real estate so best to put the best in charge.

Such a conflict could spread to the waters around Indonesia so hopefully the Aussie diesel subs will be working by then as they'd play a central role in any such conflict.

Their not working now?

Stellar

Originally posted by FredT
Can you give us more details than that? Where etc. Perhaps a link ??????

Well i was involved in those discussions at least a few times so here are some links.

US admits Russians photographed carrier.

ARE US AIRCRAFT CARRIERS EQUIPPED WITH AN ANTI-AIRCRAFT DEFENCE SYSTEM?

U.S. ship took 40 minutes to respond to order

The examples above from unscripted naval exercise evolutions provide ample evidence of the vulnerability of US Navy carrier battle groups to attacks from diesel submarines, but of course there are other ways to sink a carrier, as the Russian Air Force knows well. In October 2000, the smart-looking aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk was “mugged” by Russian SU-24 and Su-27 aircraft, which were not detected until they were virtually on top of the carrier. The Russian aircraft buzzed the carrier’s flight deck and caught the ship completely unprepared. To add insult to injury, the Russians took very detailed photos of the Kitty Hawk’s flight deck, and very courteously, provided the pictures to the American skipper via e-mail. In a story in the December 7, 2000 edition of WorldNetDaily, one US sailor exclaimed, “The entire crew watched overhead as the Russians made a mockery of our feeble attempt of intercepting them.” Russia’s air force is now only a faint shadow of what it once was, but even now, they can demonstrate that they can, if necessary, do significant damage to the US Navy. It is little wonder then that a Russian newspaper gloated that “If these had been planes on a war mission, the aircraft carrier would definitely have been sunk.

Why also did the Kitty Hawk, 40 minutes later, finally launch aircraft to intercept the Russian planes that had already flown over, but did no physical harm to the ship? Why was it necessary to belatedly intercept the Russians if the US Navy was so confident that the Russians were no threat? And why did the Washington Times impart that the “Kitty Hawk commanders were so unnerved by the aerial penetration they rotated squadrons on 24-hour alert and had planes routinely meet or intercept various aircraft?” Because in asymmetrical warfare, the very concept is to strike when the larger, more powerful enemy is least prepared. This is what the Japanese did when they attacked Pearl Harbor in the early morning hours on a Sunday. This is why the 1968 Tet holiday offensive was launched when the Army of the Republic of Vietnam was in a low state of readiness. But then, perhaps it would have been more sporting of the Russians to have called in first before launching their mock attack."

www.g2mil.com...

Stellar

^^^
My my.. this is news to me!!
Wonder why I never heard of it before..



[edit on 19-3-2006 by Daedalus3]

Stellar, only 6 Exocets? That's very disturbing. Apparently Iran has hundreds of them.

The Straits of Malacca imo will be critical as basically the entire Chinese, Japanese and Australian oil supply comes through this narrow waterway. If China wanted to cripple Japans economy it may attempt to blockade this energy supply route first. As well, China is building a naval base in Burma, close to the entrance of the Straits of Malacca. Elements of the Russian Pacific Fleet may also become involved in any such future naval engagement in SE Asian waters.

If sea traffic was unable to get through the Straits of Malacca it would be forced to divert around the Indonesian Archipeligo, thus bringing a massive amount of merchant traffic into Aussie waters. Fortunately, one of America's largest sub bases in the world outside of the States is located on Australia's West coast a few days sail South of Indonesia, which will no doubt come in handy (as it did in WW2 when a huge secret American sub base was located in the same area).

The Aussie Kokums Collins class subs are fine boats, however they've been plagued by numerous problems resulting from their construction in Australia which imo lacks the technical expertise to build such boats. Most of these problems have been resolved, at enormous taxpayer expense, so one would hope they'd be fully operational before any large scale naval engagement occurs in the region. It would've been far easier to allow Kokums to build these subs lock, stock and barrel and deliver them working properly and in one piece to the Aussie navy.

I'd imagine there'd be a combination of LA Class attack subs and Aussie Kokums Collins class diesel subs running patrols throughout the Indonesion Archipeligo in any major future naval engagement with Chinese and possibly Russian naval forces. The continuation of the supply of energy to Australia, China and Japan would rest on the outcome of any such naval engagement in the region and thus be decisive in any future global conflict.







[edit on 19-3-2006 by JamesinOz]

Originally posted by xmotex
In a no holds barred engagement the USN has significant technological and even more significant numerical advantages over any likely adversary.

Numbers i can easily agree with but a technological edge is largely illusion. Many navies are admitted to have far superior ASW skills and if that is so how can the USN have a technological edge when the SU basically had a submarine 'fleet' which in 1980 consisted of about 480 submarines of various types? It begs ALOT of questions as to why a navy with a technological edge would leave such a gaping hole in it's planning.

That doesn't mean the USN is unbeatable however. Good tactics or a technological ace in the hole can overcome otherwise superior forces.

Doesn't that normally prove the force in question was not really superior to start with?

I am less concerned about the AShCM threat - that's a threat the USN has been focused on preparing for since the 60's. Even the SSK threat, while harder to counter effectively, is something the USN has spent a lot of time and money training against.

To no great effect it seems... We know it can shoot down passenger airliners but will it really be a shield against much anything ( and god forbid it be Russian ASM's) else? Well i don't know but looking at how they training against diesels and submarines in general were done i fear for the worse.

" It is well known that senior US Navy officers have a tradition of omitting information about the Navy’s weaknesses and deficiencies during public testimony. For example, in the early 1980s, wrote Scammell, Navy officers
tried to conceal the shortcomings of the new Aegis system by using unrealistically easy operational tests, then by classifying the poor results: “An amalgam of sophisticated seaborne radar, computers, and surface-to-air rockets ten years in development, Aegis was built to simultaneously track up to two hundred aerial targets and to control thirty killer missiles. But in sea tests against sixteen easy targets – easy because they were lobbed in one after another instead of all at the same time, as they would arrive in combat – the supershield missed all but five…” Consequently, “The results of the sea trials were immediately classified, ostensibly for reasons of national
security, and it was announced that the tests had been successful. When Congressional overseers eventually learned they had been duped –a gain because not everyone in the fiasco interpreted ‘patriotic duty’ as ‘staying silent’—the Aegis program was very nearly scuttled.” According to Representative Denny Smith, a Republican from Oregon and former F-4 fighter pilot, Navy officers deliberately deleted key passages from their initial test reports on the Aegis system to keep him in the dark on its failings.

www.g2mil.com...

but how well is it going to cope with 50-100 IRBM's screaming towards the bird farm at Mach OMFG?

I think there are plenty of other threats to concentrate on myself.

Stellar

The Soviet sub fleet in 1980 was a joke. Their boats were noisy, short legged, and had a horrifying maintenance record. And their crews weren't nearly as well trained as US and other country sub crews were. Yeah they had almost 500 subs, but unless you're trying to overwhelm with quantity, if you don't have QUALITY subs, then having 500 of them isn't gonna get you very far. I'd love to see the record of how MANY of those 480 could put to sea in working condition at any given time as well.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
My two cents:
First: The article is long and dragged out with little substance and mostly rhetoric.

Then you should have read it with far more attention since it's not that at all.

The rhetorician starts his claim that the US success in the Pacific was mostly due to Japanese stupidity. This is ignorance.

Well then you did not start reading at the start of the article did you? What he said about the Pacfic war you can find elsewhere and everything he says about it has been talked about for decades. I am sorry your ignorant of if but it hardly changes reality.

The US success was well planning and marvelous tactics.

Nonsense. They had to fire plenty of people just to get the fleet base moved to pearl harbour. The US success in the Pacific was largely due to taking the chances presented by the Japanese mistakes. If the Japanese played their cards as they easily could have ( just used brute force and their still vastly superior seamanship) there would have been very little the US could have done to avoid having to fall back to the US West coast.

The Japanese used marvelous tactics as well;

No they really messed up almost everywhere they could have. How they managed to botch the Pearl harbour raid so badly, after setting it up perfectly, is almost beyond comprehension.

not only Kamikazes but the Japanese were superb at night battles, which the US was poor in this department.

If the Japanese started to use Kamikazes before they were losing it would have been hard for them to lose the war fast or at all. They had expert pilots volunteering to crash into ships from day one but they, for some obscure reason, decided against it.

I think the claim that the US was "lucky" is an ignorant one at best.

It has nothing to do with ignorance and few claims the author makes has not been considered by bothers. Midway had as much to do with Japanese errors as with US luck but it certainly was not a win due to superior tactics or any such nonsense. A historian who is not willing to state the Midway was to at least some extent a 'lucky' break is not serious about the topic or history in general.

Second: The article seems to draw erroneous conclusions. It is my belief that the US emphasis on Carriers, although clearly has a Naval role, is not for Naval purposes.

The first perceptive thing you have said so far. The Navy carriers are in fact mainly to do with being able to play global policeman who can shift his floating airbases around at will. It certainly was a lousy way to try win a cold war against submarines and long range anti ship missiles.

The mere concept of a Battle group shows that the Carrier is seen as an inferior ship needing layers of protection by numerous ships. As opposed to WW2 where Carriers often travelled in packs of Carriers..

They are not seen as inferior ships but ships that need support to function. Trying to pack a carrier with the air defenses it requires would make flight operations extremely dangerous at the best of times and certainly so under battle conditions. It's just cheaper and more strategically sound to spread your air defenses out around the carrier and not to try put all your eggs in one big 'target' basket.

.and were used to shield Destroyers which were used for amphibious assaults and sub hunting...the Carriers were almost autonomous and were the most significant ship in the Navy during WW2.

You should go read which ships suffered most in the Pacific war. Go read about what sort of suicide missions picket destroyers were supposedly to do to give early warnings to carriers. So the idea that carriers are there to protect destroyers, when destroyers were hung out to dry just to give a few minutes warning, is not something you would claim had you read your history.

However; it seems clear that the Navy lost hope in Carriers and their vulnerability to smart weapons. Again Destroyers and Cruisers and Submarines are the Kings of battle on the Seas.

Well their still building them so it does not seem that they in fact lose hope in them. The current king of the high seas is the thing that flies over it at high speed without facing threats from every direction..

This is why the Aegis class ships are the Flag ship of choice for most American Admirals.

This is why the world's navies largely ignore Carriers.

Their just smart enough to realise that they wont command long if their trying to command from a carrier that wont float long in a cold war situation.

It's because of Carriers' significant contribution to projection of power to a nation (i.e. a floating air force capable usually of obtaining air superiority in a region where the USAF is not) that they still exist; and the abundance of US dollars.

At which it's not very good at anyways. Carriers are just airfields that would have been sunk in the 'real' war they were allegedly built to fight.

Other nations with less funding have no longer bothered with the Carrier and this does not make them weaker.

Quite a few navies operates carriers and some are still building or buying them to this very day. You really should check your facts i think.

This is probably an example of some US policy makers and the US public's belief their Navy is godly ... the US Carrier.
But tactics have changed and the US Navy is not oblivious; war games against the Soviet Navy taught much about how modern Naval warfare would be.

Did they pay the SU to take part in these 'war games' or did they just steal the ships and crews for a short time? The USSR designed it's surface fleet around the concept of a massive first strike that could in times of tension simply hold any US battle groups in the area hostage. There would not be time to get planes in the air before the missiles arrived.

Battle Groups work well together to provide good air-defense and good missile defense etc. while being able to effectively project force.

Well you can not project force if it sinks very fast so i don't understand the claim at all.

Tactics are still good; and the addition of anti-sub warfare and what-not eliminates the stupid idea that a Diesel submarine would have much chance at all against any well equipped and prepared Navy.

Then you should go back and read the article you just said you did. The USN under perfect training conditions have a hard time stopping diesels and one can only imagine how a battle damaged American task force would fare in like situation.

Prepared is an important word; because the British Navy, while well equipped, was poorly prepared in the Falkand's war. Each Naval loss they incurred was mostly due to bad management practices; or occurred during the riskiest part of the mission...scouting.

They lost ships because they imagined that defending against Anti ships missiles were something that works reliably. Turns out stopping anti ship missiles and planes is not something that you can bargain on.

The battle groups were almost entirely unaffected and the British Navy destroyed or forced capitulation from the Argentinian Navy rather swiftly; most of the damage incurred was by Argentinian land-based Air forces.That's my two cents:

Well there was not much of a navy to destroy so claiming glorious victory when the enemy was never in sight is at best funny.

The article needs to focus on real modern warfare and not perceived modern warfare which is built on by past experiences.

It did; read it this time and i imagine you will learn a great many things. If you believe the author is all that biased you can always go back and read a few dozen books on the topic as some here have already done.

Stellar

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The Soviet sub fleet in 1980 was a joke.

Well i guess that could explain why the US navy never bothered to prepare to fight submarines properly.

Their boats were noisy, short legged, and had a horrifying maintenance record.

Noise is not a very big deal when you deploy your submarines in dozens at a time to achieve some strategic end. Surface forces could always race ahead and start clearing the way to some extent. Where do you get the claim of short legged anyways since that has as much to do with what your willing to let the crew endure as with ship design. Diesels obviously have more limited endurance but they can be replenished at sea.

And their crews weren't nearly as well trained as US and other country sub crews were.

Evidence, or are we in the business of repeating myths on ATS?

Yeah they had almost 500 subs, but unless you're trying to overwhelm with quantity, if you don't have QUALITY subs, then having 500 of them isn't gonna get you very far.

Well submarine warfare have been compared to two men with baseball bats in a darkened room and in such circumstances i believe numbers will matter a great deal. Even if the enemy submarine 'clubs' your team mate to death his just revelead his position for you and the rest of the gang.

I'd love to see the record of how MANY of those 480 could put to sea in working condition at any given time as well.

It does not much matter how reliable they were as the SU tended to prepare a great many ships for quick strategic deployment normally catching the US with far fewer boats at sea.

Stellar

Originally posted by JamesinOz
Stellar, only 6 Exocets? That's very disturbing. Apparently Iran has hundreds of them.

The Straits of Malacca imo will be critical as basically the entire Chinese, Japanese and Australian oil supply comes through this narrow waterway. If China wanted to cripple Japans economy it may attempt to blockade this energy supply route first. As well, China is building a naval base in Burma, close to the entrance of the Straits of Malacca. Elements of the Russian Pacific Fleet may also become involved in any such future naval engagement in SE Asian waters.

If sea traffic was unable to get through the Straits of Malacca it would be forced to divert around the Indonesian Archipeligo, thus bringing a massive amount of merchant traffic into Aussie waters. Fortunately, one of America's largest sub bases in the world outside of the States is located on Australia's West coast a few days sail South of Indonesia, which will no doubt come in handy (as it did in WW2 when a huge secret American sub base was located in the same area).

The Aussie Kokums Collins class subs are fine boats, however they've been plagued by numerous problems resulting from their construction in Australia which imo lacks the technical expertise to build such boats. Most of these problems have been resolved, at enormous taxpayer expense, so one would hope they'd be fully operational before any large scale naval engagement occurs in the region. It would've been far easier to allow Kokums to build these subs lock, stock and barrel and deliver them working properly and in one piece to the Aussie navy.

I'd imagine there'd be a combination of LA Class attack subs and Aussie Kokums Collins class diesel subs running patrols throughout the Indonesion Archipeligo in any major future naval engagement with Chinese and possibly Russian naval forces. The continuation of the supply of energy to Australia, China and Japan would rest on the outcome of any such naval engagement in the region and thus be decisive in any future global conflict.

[edit on 19-3-2006 by JamesinOz]

The Stratits of Malacca are in no jeopardy w.r.t. PLAN activities.
The Indian Navy's presence in the region assures that. Any attempt to advance PLAN / PLAN motivated forces (Burma/Pakistan/Bangladesh) to block the straits will result in a naval blockade of such forces right at the onset.
Any attempt to block these straits w/o Indian consent by anyone (except maybe the USN and I see no conflict of interest here in the near future)is a near impossibility.

Originally posted by JamesinOz
Stellar, only 6 Exocets? That's very disturbing. Apparently Iran has hundreds of them.

The pilots of the 2d Escuadrilla, trained in France in 1980–81, were fully qualified with the aircraft. However, at the time the conflict in the Falklands began, only five of the Super Etendards and five Exocet missiles had been delivered from France. The Common Market nations and NATO immediately initiated an arms embargo on Argentina, therefore halting the French shipments of planes and missiles. Throughout the conflict, the Argentine government tried desperately but unsuccessfully to obtain more Exocets on the world market. Argentina would have to fight the war with only five Etendards and Exocet missiles. Since spare parts for the Etendards were cut off by the NATO arms embargo, the FAA decided to hold one of the five fighters in reserve and use it for parts to support the remaining four aircraft.

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

Couldn't find mine but Seekerof used that one somewhere.

The Straits of Malacca imo will be critical as basically the entire Chinese, Japanese and Australian oil supply comes through this narrow waterway. If China wanted to cripple Japans economy it may attempt to blockade this energy supply route first.

I am not so sure Japan will be siding with America in any future conflict anyways. Their politicians might try but whether Japanese business interests let that happen is another question altogether.

As well, China is building a naval base in Burma, close to the entrance of the Straits of Malacca. Elements of the Russian Pacific Fleet may also become involved in any such future naval engagement in SE Asian waters.

Russia and China is as good as allied and the Russian pacific fleet will very likely be involved IMO.

If sea traffic was unable to get through the Straits of Malacca it would be forced to divert around the Indonesian Archipeligo, thus bringing a massive amount of merchant traffic into Aussie waters. Fortunately, one of America's largest sub bases in the world outside of the States is located on Australia's West coast a few days sail South of Indonesia, which will no doubt come in handy (as it did in WW2 when a huge secret American sub base was located in the same area).

Secret American sub base? Well if you know more do tell .

The Aussie Kokums Collins class subs are fine boats, however they've been plagued by numerous problems resulting from their construction in Australia which imo lacks the technical expertise to build such boats.

Well if Australia is going to be the Allie of America it clearly wants to be it will come at huge taxpayer cost. I imagine their at least trying to build the boats in Australia so not all the money goes overseas?

Most of these problems have been resolved, at enormous taxpayer expense, so one would hope they'd be fully operational before any large scale naval engagement occurs in the region. It would've been far easier to allow Kokums to build these subs lock, stock and barrel and deliver them working properly and in one piece to the Aussie navy.

Well it's what we did when we bought our latest submarines from Germany but it's clearly not something you want to do when you plan on ramping up your own military industrial complex. It seems Australia might preparing to expand it's armed forces by preparing the infrastructure to do-it-themselves in the next decade or two..

I'd imagine there'd be a combination of LA Class attack subs and Aussie Kokums Collins class diesel subs running patrols throughout the Indonesion Archipeligo in any major future naval engagement with Chinese and possibly Russian naval forces.

Well diesels do have clear advantages in shallow waters so it would not be a smart move by America if they do not ask the Aus government not to assist in that capacity.

The continuation of the supply of energy to Australia, China and Japan would rest on the outcome of any such naval engagement in the region and thus be decisive in any future global conflict.

China has started building up a officially declared oil reserve and if Japan have not so far i imagine they will join soon. Any war that breaks out will take a few weeks to find it's pattern before supply ships stand a chance of getting trough anyways. If a country is not at least prepared for that......

Stellar

[edit on 19-3-2006 by StellarX]