Australia's new submarines - What do we need?

[Phantasee]

Oh, I know we have those diesel boats, but I'm wondering if we're better served by them or nuclear boats.

As it is, I think we're more likely to get some more tanks, Hercs, or C-17s, before we spend another dime on the RCN.

[Coop D'etat]

Yah, I agree with you there. It seems every couple of years there is talk about finally getting serious about increasing our presence in the north but it ends up taking a back seat to the traditional peacemaking/keeping role of the Canadian armed forces and Afganistan probably hasn't helped much either. Which is a shame because we really should be able to enforce our ownership of our own backyard with a bit more than a few inuit militiamen and the occasional CF-18 flyby. But given limited resources the Canadian government is willing to invest in the military, we probably don't have a choice but to focus on more immediate priorities. Bringing our fighters into the 5th generation is also a major capital outlay not that far from the horizon too.

[Phantasee]

What happened to Harper's plans to build a deep-water port up north?

I think a change in attitude and perspective is important. I liked that they mentioned the phrase "from sea to sea to sea" in the Opening Ceremony in Vancouver. I understand there's a small movement to change our national motto from "Sea to Sea" to include that extra Sea. In latin, of course. If we remember we've got water up there we might be more interested in keeping others out.

The US isn't likely to put up with our strongly worded diplomatic messages like the Danes do.

[Stuart]

Hey Stuart, what do you think of Canada's needs for a sub? We have all that coastline in the north to patrol, plus our eastern and western coasts as well. Would it be practical for Canada to get submarines, nuclear or diesel? Or would we be better off with ice breakers for the same price?

The first question, as always, is what do you want the submarines for? Or, more precisely, what is the operational requirement that a submarine force is supposed to fill?

If the job description is to provide ASW training facilities against diesel-electric submarines of a technical and operational standard equivalent to the British Commonwealth (the Australians, Canadians and British having the best sub-drivers in the world) then the Victoria class will do fine especially since they were virtually given away.

If, however, the RCN is serious about patrolling the far north and wants to poke around under the ice, then nuclear submarines are the only choice. Taking a diesel-electric under the ice is far too dangerous to be recommended as standard practice and should be done in fear and trembling. Back in the 1980s, Canada actually recognized this and launched a proposal for a fleet of twelve (count'em) SSNs. The bidders were Trafalgar from the UK and Rubis from France. Trafalgar would have got the contract but economic sanity prevailed and the project was dropped. That means the poking around under the ice bit has to be left to the USN.

[Uraniun235]

There are five suppliers of diesel-electric submarines on this earth. The Russians offering Project 636 and Project 677, the Chinese offering Project 039 and 041, the Japanese building Soryu, a Franco-Spanish consortium offering Scorpene and a German-Swedish consortium offering Klasse 212 and Klasse 214. Everybody else who builds submarines licenses the design from one of those five.

I remember hearing a rumor that Taiwan might license the design for the Barbel-class diesel-electric, have you heard anything about that?

[Aaron]

Yah, I agree with you there. It seems every couple of years there is talk about finally getting serious about increasing our presence in the north but it ends up taking a back seat to the traditional peacemaking/keeping role of the Canadian armed forces and Afganistan probably hasn't helped much either. Which is a shame because we really should be able to enforce our ownership of our own backyard with a bit more than a few inuit militiamen and the occasional CF-18 flyby. But given limited resources the Canadian government is willing to invest in the military, we probably don't have a choice but to focus on more immediate priorities. Bringing our fighters into the 5th generation is also a major capital outlay not that far from the horizon too.

*sigh* It's not well publicized but one of the roles of the old Airborne was to be a QRF for arctic operations. IIRC that role fell in turn to the light infantry regiments that replaced it. The Rangers are little more then a coast-watching force, all they were ever intended to be actually.

But you'll get no argument from me that the RCN needs increased funding. I was around when those SSN's were proposed by Mulroney and then quashed by the next government, along with lots of other nice proposals that the Liberals wouldn't deliver.

[Stuart]

I remember hearing a rumor that Taiwan might license the design for the Barbel-class diesel-electric, have you heard anything about that?

I heard the rumors; they were never anything more than that. The Barbel design is more than fifty years old and it's so far behind the curve that it isn't funny. The latest Chinese boats are more modern. The problem isn't just hull design although that's some of it, its the sonar and command systems on the boats. Integrating these for a specific submarine design is fiendishly expensive. Also, the silencing and machinery standards of the Barbels are far behind world standards. I think the stories came from people looking through Jane's Frightening Slips for a submarine that wasn't from one of the five and eventually coming up with that.

[Korto]

Thanks for the info Stuart.
Interesting to hear that the French nuclear sub requires so little. It's actually my belief, thinking about it, that if both sides of politics were to present a united front, and explain to the voters calmly and rationally the 'Facts of life', the requirements due to our location, and the sheer difference in performance, that Australians would accept the French boats as you describe them.
We don't need to build nuclear plants, there's no NIMBY problems, you didn't mention any costs so it's just a guess that there'll be a cost saving, and if it's not in the standard deal that the French keep the spent rods at refueling I daresay a bit of extra money changes hands and it can be.
The Greens could be steamrolled, and all it would require would be bilateral agreement, without taking advantage of the opportunity for an easy scare campaign.

So conventional subs it is.

[Patrick Degan]

I remember hearing a rumor that Taiwan might license the design for the Barbel-class diesel-electric, have you heard anything about that?

I heard the rumors; they were never anything more than that. The Barbel design is more than fifty years old and it's so far behind the curve that it isn't funny. The latest Chinese boats are more modern. The problem isn't just hull design although that's some of it, its the sonar and command systems on the boats. Integrating these for a specific submarine design is fiendishly expensive. Also, the silencing and machinery standards of the Barbels are far behind world standards. I think the stories came from people looking through Jane's Frightening Slips for a submarine that wasn't from one of the five and eventually coming up with that.

The Barbels? Wow... The last time I've even spared a thought towards those boats was when I actually saw one at dock in the Industrial Canal back in the late 80s, waiting to have her sail, fins, and screw sliced off prior to her trip to the breakers.

[Ford Prefect]

Obviously the newest Australian submarine should fire F-35s out of electromagnetic lauch tubes. Honestly, while I can understand why it's a good move to develop Australia's shipbuilding capability, I'm not so certain of the government's ability to deliver on military promises. Their track record isn't exactly exemplary in that regard. Of course, Ic an't really think of a better usage for all that money (other than the health and education systems, but they're not exactly being neglected), so hey.

[adam_grif]

No you've got it all wrong, it should fire F-22's out of electromagnetic launch tubes!

I've often wondered wtf Australia even needed with submarines in the first place, but I'm sure they've got their reasons.

[Lusankya]

No you've got it all wrong, it should fire F-22's out of electromagnetic launch tubes!

I've often wondered wtf Australia even needed with submarines in the first place, but I'm sure they've got their reasons.

IIRC, at the time there were lots of marginal electorates in SA, as well as a bunch of Cabinet ministers in the state.

These may or may not have been reasons.

[Shroom Man 777]

No you've got it all wrong, it should fire F-22's out of electromagnetic launch tubes!

I've often wondered wtf Australia even needed with submarines in the first place, but I'm sure they've got their reasons.

Australia's a rich Western country sitting right next to South East Asia, which is full of poor crappy (asshole) countries. I find it remarkable that they're so laid back with their foreign policies and not, say, invading Singapore or Malaysia or the Shroomippines or something. Practically everyone's laid a finger on the Spratly's, and also there's the future regional domination by China when it's military gets more badass (and perhaps this is why Aussie's looking for new awesome subs?). I wonder what Australian foreign interests are wrt Asia. Or are they rightfully not giving a crap because Asia is an ugly place?

FROD: I was disappointed that you didn't say that Australia's new subs should launch gundams from its SLBM silos, wherein the gundams would backflip out of their MIRV buses and start sniping Singapore from orbit or something before de-orbiting to stomp on Malaysia's face forever.

[Ford Prefect]

Australia's a rich Western country sitting right next to South East Asia, which is full of poor crappy (asshole) countries. I find it remarkable that they're so laid back with their foreign policies and not, say, invading Singapore or Malaysia or the Shroomippines or something. Practically everyone's laid a finger on the Spratly's, and also there's the future regional domination by China when it's military gets more badass (and perhaps this is why Aussie's looking for new awesome subs?). I wonder what Australian foreign interests are wrt Asia. Or are they rightfully not giving a crap because Asia is an ugly place?

Before I was born there was apparently some pretty major paranoia about being invaded by Indonesia (and they shared a similar paranoia about being invaded by Australia), but even then I don't think anyone seriously considered military action to be all that plausible. In any case, you're probably overstating Australia's economic power in comparison to some countries in the region. While Australia has twice the nominal GDP that Indonesia does, they actually have superior PPP, by quite a bit. Thatm ight not really count for much in absolute terms, but it bears mentioning. In any case, Australian foreign policy is not particularly confrontational. Depending on who is in power the government either prefers to ignore our own region and focus primarily on being buddy-buddy with America, or otherwise is interested in engaging in multilateral relationships with other Southeast Asian nations. Multilateralism is the current vogue.

FROD: I was disappointed that you didn't say that Australia's new subs should launch gundams from its SLBM silos, wherein the gundams would backflip out of their MIRV buses and start sniping Singapore from orbit or something before de-orbiting to stomp on Malaysia's face forever.

I said F-35s because the Australian government actually has purchased, or at least committed to purchase, a bunch of them, but that was something of a debacle too (though not exactly their fault). I could have said F-22s, I guess, because the government did go and ask if they could buy some but the US was all 'lol no'.

Beside, our current stores of lunar titanium are too low to consider mass production of Gundams.

[Phantasee]

FROD: I was disappointed that you didn't say that Australia's new subs should launch gundams from its SLBM silos, wherein the gundams would backflip out of their MIRV buses and start sniping Singapore from orbit or something before de-orbiting to stomp on Malaysia's face forever.

It's okay Shroom. At least you said it for him.

[JBG]

OK, lets have a look at the supply side of this equation.

There are five suppliers of diesel-electric submarines on this earth. The Russians offering Project 636 and Project 677, the Chinese offering Project 039 and 041, the Japanese building Soryu, a Franco-Spanish consortium offering Scorpene and a German-Swedish consortium offering Klasse 212 and Klasse 214. Everybody else who builds submarines licenses the design from one of those five.

Of these, the Japanese do not offer their boats for sale on the export market so they can be dropped from consideration. The Chinese boats are junk. The Russian designs were pretty good twenty years ago but their sensors, silencing and command systems are now decades behind world standard. They'e a good deal for a navy that isn't very serious about operations and/or is desperately short of cash but for a serious power-projection navy, they just don't hack it. So the Chinese and the Russians can be dropped from consideration. That leaves just the French-led team with Scorpene and the German-led team with Klasse 214.

There are five suppliers of nuclear-powered submarine technology on this earth. They are the United States with Virginia, Russia withe Project 885 and Project 971, China with Project 093, the U.K. with Astute and France with Barracuda. The Chinese boats aren't just junk, they're dangerous junk. The United States does not and will not export its nuclear technology. So they're both out. The U.K. is joined at the hip to the United States so they're out. That leaves Russia and France, both of whom have signed deals to export nuclear submarine technology. The Russian boats use highly-enriched reactor fuel, the export of which is prohibited under nuclear proliferation treaties. That's why they lease the boat to India, not sell it. If the boat needs to be refuelled, it goes back to Russia. Also, the Russian boats are years behind the curve on submarine technology. They're best boat is, at best, 1990s standard and that just doesn't hack it. So, we're down to France.

Just on plain availability, the choice is strictly confined. If the selection is for a diesel-electric it's either France or Germany. If its a nuclear boat, its France.

So, let's look at that nuclear and diesel-electric choice. This is largely a matter of geography. Australia's position in the world and its shape means the submarines have to have long range. Great. It's a long way from Australia to the operational scenarios. That means the boats have to have long range. They'll be operating in waters dominated by a very numerous navy with large numbers of assets albeit employing ASW operators with the technical skills of the Three Stooges. But, ASW is a numbers game and the sheer volume of assets is critical. So, the submarines will require a long underwater endurance. Because they have a long transit time, they require a large weapons load-out in addition to their large fuel supply to provide endurance on station. They also require a sophisticated sensor suite so they can locate and engage targets/missions without external assistance. So speaks the operational requirement.

Congratulations, the Australian Navy has just defined a nuclear-powered attack boat and they know it.

This isn't a new conclusion. Back when the Collins Class was being formulated, the fact that the operational requirement was perfectly well known and accepted. In fact, the operational requirement can only be met by the use of a nuclear-powered design. If the nuclear-powered option is ruled out, then the operational requirement has to be compromised in order to provide a submarine that can be built using diesel-electric technology. That's what basically lies behind the Collins Class; the competing design teams (France, the UK, Germany and Sweden) offered submarines that were the closest approaches to nuclear-powered performance that they could manage. The French, the Germans and the UK knew what they were doing and what the task required; their boats were big, heavy and very expensive. The Swedes didn't; they had no real idea of what building a modern ocean-going submarine involved let alone one with the Australian specs. All they had ever built were little coastal boats that tooled around in the Baltic. They got the idea that if they enlarged one of said coastal boats they could achieve miracles. And therein lay the seeds of the Collins class fiasco.

Since then, air-independent propulsion has arrived. Wheee, it allows us to build a diesel-electric boat with the performance of a nuclear boat. We know that because there's this article in Naval Technology that says so. Hang on a minute, that article was written by the AIP sales team. Could it be exaggerating a little? No, its exaggerating a LOT. What AIP buys you is the ability to charge batteries under water. It does not increase speed of advance (4 - 6 knots for a diesel boat, 30 knots for a nuke) it does not increase overall endurance and may actually reduce it. Depending on the technology chosen, it may preclude charging batteries while under attack.

There are two choices for AIP. One is the Stirling diesel; this allows the use of standard bunker fuel to run the diesels underwater without snorting. It's simple, relatively economic and noisy. The other is fuel cell technology. This requires LOX tanks to run a fuel cell system that generates electricity. It's blindingly expensive, very complex and silent. The Germans love it. Note that AIP in whatever form doesn't actually buy us very much so why is it being promoted so heavily? Well, back in the 1980s and 1990s people sold a lot of diesel-electric submarines on the export market and these boats were delivered at the end of the 1990s and into the 2000s. They're pretty much new. The catch is that the building surge meant that everybody who wants a new submarine pretty much has one. So, somehow, they have to be persuaded that the boats they just bought are obsolete and need to be replaced. Enter AIP. It's not a survival system for submarines, it's a survival system for submarine builders.

OK, so we have the choice between an AIP-equipped diesel-electric and a nuclear-powered boat. The politics against nuclear-power in Australia are pretty strong and appear to be firmly entrenched. That basic political constraint means that a diesel-electric boat is the preferred option. That means the bidders will be French and German and here's the catch. The Klasse 214 comes nowhere near matching the specification. Nor does Scorpene, even the largest member of the Scorpene family (the Spanish S80) doesn't come close. So, those two designs can, at best, be used as a basis for a much larger design that would meet spec. It doesn't really matter which is chosen, the two boats are very close in overall quality and I wouldn't care to chose between the two design teams.

However, at this point, something interesting happens. There already is a large, long-ranged version of Scorpene; its called Barracuda and it's nuclear-powered. As the French design team get to work on their Scorpene (AUS) bid, they'll use a conventionally-powered version of Barracuda as a base. Essentially, they'll put a diesel-electric + AIP power train into the Barracuda hull. Somebody is going to ask why are we doing this? Why are we compromising a perfectly good design?

Let's look at Barracuda a little more closely. As we do so, something becomes apparent; this is not the same as the US, UK and Russian boats. It's designed in a quite different way and the reason why comes from its design history. Back in the 1970s, the French produced the Agosta-70 design diesel-electric boats for their own navy. At the time they thought that quite a few navies would be interested in an export nuclear-powered submarine so they created a nuclear-powered version of Agosta-70. Because this was an export boat, it had to use low-enrichment fuel to avoid restrictions from non-proliferation treaties. So, they designed the power train to use low-enrichment fuel and accepted the shortish life between refuellings by designing the system to be very easy to refuel. The idea flew like the proverbial lead brick. Nobody was interested. So, the French Navy decided to adopt the design and put their own electronics into it (not the kiddie playschool stuff they give to export clients) as their Rubis class fleet SSN. Well, when they did, they got a horrible surprise. The basic hull form of the Agosta was totally unsuited to nuclear power employment. The Rubis class were about as noisy as a steam train with arthritis having an orgasm. The hull needed a major rebuild to "cure" the noise problem. This rebuild was called Amethyste (it's a contorted French acronym, AMElioration Tactique, HydrodYnamique, Silence, Transmission, Ecoute if you really must know) and the rebuilt submarines became the Amethyste class. Now, at that time, Agosta-70 was looking pretty ancient on the export market and an attempted upgrade, Agosta-90 wasn't much better (only Pakistan was dumb enough to buy it). So, somebody came up with a bright idea, why don't we put a diesel-electric power train in the Amethyste hull and that'll give us a world-class diesel-electric boat. So, they did, they tinkered with and improved it and cleaned it up and that gave them Scorpene. Then, since the French Navy now needed a nuclear-powered boat to replace the Amethyste class, they stuffed a nuclear reactor into the Scorpene hull and that gave them Barracuda (a little bit more complex than that but the short version will do). Now, put the kiddie playschool electronics back into Barracuda and we have a nuclear-powered export SSN.

Just recently, the French sold a package to the Brazilian Navy that includes four diesel-electric Scorpenes and one nuclear-powered Scorpene. You see, the French stil use that low-enrichment, easy-to-refuel reactor system so their submarine don't need to breach the non-proliferation treaties. In fact the nuclear-powered Scorpene doesn't need any shore-based nuclear infrastructure at all It uses exactly the same fuel rods that are used by French-designed commercial nuclear reactors. They can be changed either in Australia using existing shoreside infrastructure (a deliberate design choice by the French) or the boats can be sent back to France for refuelling once every ten years. The package bought by the Brazilians actually includes shoreside facilities for making their own fuel rods but that's their option, it isn't a necessary part of the deal. The idea that Australia would need an extensive shoreside nuclear power industry to support an SSN fleet simply isn't true for the nuclear-powered Scorpene. The boat was specifically designed not to need that. It would be needed for UK or US designs because they use highly enriched, weapons-grade fuel (and thus need refuelling once every thirty years if that) but the French boats don't.

So, putting it all together, my personal recommendation would be the purchase of an enlarged derivative of the Scorpene with DCNS being told to put in an unrequested second bid with nuclear-powered Scorpene as an alternative. That way Defence can either go with existing prejudices and buy the diesel-electric variant or (if they have a sudden attack of common sense) take the nuclear option. Or, they can get the first and they do a crafty switch to the second later.

Very interesting and informative Stuart.

I have long held that whilst a couple of good SSks would be useful, our sub needs can only be satisfied by nuclear powered boats.

As Tim31 pointed out, the majority of the left here will simply not discuss the issue of nuclear power for any purpose. You may as well throw cute widdle puppies and kittens into a furnace. To make matters worse the conservatives did not push the issue in the 11 years in which they held the whip hand. I would like to raise that issue with my local members (both liberal) should I get the chance though, for one of them, Ruddock looks extremely tired these days!

To support nuclear boats however we really need to build up sovereign corporate knowledge and that can only really be achieved through a domestic nuclear power industry/sector. Those opposed though seem to know better than all of the other users of domestic nuclear power in the world. Who would have thought that we were so much more intelligent and perceptive than the rest of the world to know that nuclear power is fundamentally a no show.

Ideally we would have a domestic nuclear power industry (let the Chinese and the Indians use the brown coal). nuclear attack subs and probably the same power source for the amphibs.

[Shroom Man 777]

In any case, Australian foreign policy is not particularly confrontational. Depending on who is in power the government either prefers to ignore our own region and focus primarily on being buddy-buddy with America, or otherwise is interested in engaging in multilateral relationships with other Southeast Asian nations. Multilateralism is the current vogue.

That's a very zen foreign policy. Does that apply only to modern Australia, or also to Australia in the past (like, circa Cold War or something, or earlier on when Australia still had an apartheid government)? Why would you choose to ignore your own region anyway. What led to Australia being cool like that, anyway?

What kind of hardware did Australia (and Indonesia, for that matter) have for you guys to have invasion fears?

I said F-35s because the Australian government actually has purchased, or at least committed to purchase, a bunch of them, but that was something of a debacle too (though not exactly their fault). I could have said F-22s, I guess, because the government did go and ask if they could buy some but the US was all 'lol no'.

Man, F-111 all the way. Aardvark! Spruce Goose!

Beside, our current stores of lunar titanium are too low to consider mass production of Gundams.

then you must build a fusion torch ship

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You might want to add the occasional need to irritate Indonesia on the list of Foreign Policy "to-do"s.

[Shroom Man 777]

All the South East Asian countries need to be irritated regularly.

Maybe one of the reasons why Australia's not bothering much with interfering SEAsia with its foreign policy is that there's NOTHING of value in SEAsia? Sure, a bunch of resources like wood and fish and mangos and textiles, but you can get them easily through trade. There's not much oil over there anyway, and the places are ugly tropical jungles, and messing about with governments and nations that are already terminally incompetent and profoundly corrupt and full of stupid people isn't really worth it when the Americans are already doing something like that in the region anyway?

[Ford Prefect]

That's a very zen foreign policy. Does that apply only to modern Australia, or also to Australia in the past (like, circa Cold War or something, or earlier on when Australia still had an apartheid government)? Why would you choose to ignore your own region anyway. What led to Australia being cool like that, anyway?

As far as I can tell, it's been like this for a very long time. And by ignore I don't mean 'leave alone' I mean 'be real cunts about it'. It wasn't a case of Australia being cool towards our region, it was a case of Australia wanting to play nice with huge, rich, white nations. Mostly the US since World War II. Australia's strategic defence was based upon being the bestest mates with America, so people would think twice with messing about, just in case America smacked them down. It's why there was such 'enthusiastic' support for Vietnam and the War or Terror/Iraq War.

What kind of hardware did Australia (and Indonesia, for that matter) have for you guys to have invasion fears?

Probably nothing. Like I said, it was just paranoia, sort of like being afraid that communism was going to subvert the world. That attitude isn't as widespread as it was, but it still exists.

Maybe one of the reasons why Australia's not bothering much with interfering SEAsia with its foreign policy is that there's NOTHING of value in SEAsia?

Keep in mind that Australia is a tiny nation in comparison to a lot of other nations in the region. The Phillipines has almost five times the population, for example. Even if Australia was a militaristic, expansionistic power with targets of extreme importance in Southeast Asia, it would be implausible to expect that the ADF would be even remotely capable of it. The is especially true of somewhere like Indonesia, who has a strategic plan which revolves around 'lose conventional war, engage in geurilla actions with five hundred million civillians across seventeen thousand islands'. And frankly, it's not like the ADF would smash Indonesia in a conventional war anyway. Their airforce is actually bigger than Australia's, and military reports actually argued that the F-35 didn't really give any real advantage compared to the higher end planes that Indonesia purchase from Russia.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

All the South East Asian countries need to be irritated regularly.

Maybe one of the reasons why Australia's not bothering much with interfering SEAsia with its foreign policy is that there's NOTHING of value in SEAsia? Sure, a bunch of resources like wood and fish and mangos and textiles, but you can get them easily through trade. There's not much oil over there anyway, and the places are ugly tropical jungles, and messing about with governments and nations that are already terminally incompetent and profoundly corrupt and full of stupid people isn't really worth it when the Americans are already doing something like that in the region anyway?

Australia's economy isn't as dynamic as say Taiwan really. SEA could ignore Australia if we really wanted to, except when they want to buy rather expensive ore.

Australia does want Singaporeans to come visit there to spend money etc., but they aren't against dicking us around a little either. See: SIA's constant fight for the Sydney-LA route, and that despite our FTA with Australia.

[AniThyng]

All the South East Asian countries need to be irritated regularly.

Yeah, like the Aussie parliarment dicking around with passing resolutions in support of Anwar*


*note, I did in fact vote for his party, but still, for crissakes, keep out of it, holier than thou western nations

[tim31]

Understanding the paranoia over Indonesia is easy. Big archipelago with a military strength of more than a million people, already had one revolution, citizens enjoy throwing rocks at Australian embassies.

Worth also considering how many times the ADF has been retooled and revised since the end of the second world war; the RAN was even operating light carriers up until the early eighties, and had plans to buy HMS Invincible when the Falklands conflict emerged and the RN realised it might actually need projection assets after all. So the RAN decided to ditch carrier aviation and have a bigger go at subs instead. Now they've got a pair of LHDs on the way, along with a new destroyer. New submarines are either going to be as bad a compromise as the Collins, or get put on the backburner for want of funds.

Man, F-111 all the way. Aardvark! Spruce Goose!

This is what the RAAF does to drug runners

[thejester]

Australia's foreign policy from before Federation to the '60s was built around the edifice of White Australia and the central fear that the 'yellow peril' wanted to come south, take over the continent and subjugate the white man. This got reflected in bizarre ways. When China got its shit ruined at the end of the 19th century, the fear transferred to Japan, despite Japan being an ally of Britain and thus of Australia. This fear was one of the driving forces behind the creation of the RAN in 1911, and the various fumbling attempts to give Australia a citizen army pre-1914. It was a paranoia that manifested itself in bizarre ways, such as the friendly fire incident between a Japanese cruiser and a shore battery in Western Australia in 1917. Top it all off, the central Australia achievement at Versailles in 1919 - for which 59,000 Australians apparently died - was to have talk of a racial equality clause ended.

That seems bizarre in hindsight, even acknowledging the prevalent racism of the time, but the events of 1941-42 seemed to absolutely validate this fear. Australia defence policy was basically a quid pro quo in which Australia submitted to British control during wartime in return for the British holding the Malay barrier against Japanese aggression. Well, that turned out to be bullshit (Curtin called the fall of Singapore an 'inexcusable betrayal') and within six months the Japanese were on the doorstep of a naked Australia. This began the shift to the US orbit (although this can be overemphasised) but also confirmed the basic Australian fears of the overwhelming power of the Yellow Peril. Consequently post war (when the Yellow Peril became the Red Menace) Australia maintained a string of committments in SEA, of which Vietnam was the largest. Australian troops served in the Japanese occupation, Korea, the Malyan Emergency, the Confrontation, and Vietnam. There was, IIRC, a permanent Australian presence in Malaysia until the 80s. As in pre-war days the emphasis was on forward defence but with a far more active component.

That changed post-Vietnam, when White Australia died and the threat of communism seemed to too. Defence policy came about protecting Australian territory and resources in the north against a perceived Indonesian threat (not unreasonable), whilst foreign policy was about building ties with Asia and in particular keeping Indonesia happy - the largest explanation for the disgraceful behaviour of successive Australian governments towards East Timor. That has basically remained the same, since the East Timor intervention in 1999 Australia has become more willing to project force overseas to prevent violence or government breakdown, but there's a more conciliatory approach on the table.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Understanding the paranoia over Indonesia is easy. Big archipelago with a military strength of more than a million people, already had one revolution, citizens enjoy throwing rocks at Australian embassies.

To be utterly frank, the Indonesians are more inclined to fight amongst themselves than to fight with others. There's more than enough of a legacy of inter-ethnic rivalry going around. One of the fears back during the Asian Economic Crises of the 1997s was that Indonesia would disintegrate into one festering civil war, and that isn't without merit. Indonesia as a nation has virtually no precedence!