AIRCRAFT carriers. Submarines. Fighter jets. An international arms race is underway among the rapidly developing nations to our north. In this Asian deep-pocket contest, is Australia even a contender?
In the aftermath of the Cold War, the region has become a confused place where foes have become friends and supposed friends bicker over minor — and major — territorial differences.
The problem is, the scatterings of conflicted islets which were once “no-go” zones, both diplomatically and developmentally, are now being seen as potentially valuable assets.
And everyone wants their piece.
While most nations are still tight-lipped in order to avoid offending their neighbours, the undercurrent of tension is obviously there.
Now, with yesterday’s release of an Australian Strategic Policy Institute report, even Australia has been forced to confront China’s startling economic growth and increasingly assertive territorial demands.
The growth of the region’s military budgets reflects similar concerns.
The race to procure new military equipment is picking up pace.
On the shopping lists are big-ticket items such as new submarines, advanced fighter aircraft and power-projecting aircraft-carrying warships.
Lurking behind it all is the steadily growing military and economic might of China. It has made no secret of its desire to be a major world power by 2025
But many of its neighbours are using their own growing economic strengths to send a clear, if unstated, message to the waking dragon: “Back off — we mean business”.
Tensions in the region are already rising. Beijing made headlines in November after declaring an “air defence zone” in the East China. It triggered a Cold War-style standoff with Japan, South Korea and the United States.
It is reportedly considering a similar “air defence zone” in the waters between the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam.
Both zones encompass waters rich in oil, natural gas and fish stocks.
The area’s potential for conflict is not lost on the United States.
But is Australia’s old ally in a position to do anything about it?
At a naval conference in Virginia earlier this month, chief of the US Pacific Command Admiral Samuel Locklear said: “Our historic dominance that most of us in this room have enjoyed is diminishing, no question ... There are places in the world where in this century we won’t have them …
“China is going to rise, we all know that … [But] how are they behaving? That is really the question.”
At the heart of the new arms race are the regions’ navies.
Submarines are emerging as the weapon of choice, along with advanced fighter jets and aircraft carriers.
But warships, tanks and troops are also all getting substantial boosts in funding.
So who’s buying what and which one of them is ahead in the race?
Hanging in the balance ... many of Australia’s future core defence assets are surrounded in controversy or are as yet simply undecided. Source: Supplied
AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
Aircraft carrier ownership represents membership of an elite club of countries able to project their power around the world. They’re the supersized embodiment of “gunboat diplomacy”, and they come with a price-tag to match.
About 20 of the iconic ships are active around the world. The United States runs 11 of them. And it’s not resting on its laurels. Late last year it launched the latest updated example of its nuclear-powered monstrosities — the 100,000-tonne Gerald R Ford.
China: The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) flexed its new-found aircraft carrier might late last year by sending its single ship — the ex-Ukrainian Liaoning — into the disputed South China Sea. But its ambitions do not end there. It has begun production of the first of an anticipated four domestically produced ships.
India: Openly proud of its latest acquisition, which arrived in national waters for the first time only a week ago, the INS Vikramaditya gives India the strongest naval air power in the region outside of the United States. Vikramaditya joins the old British aircraft carrier INS Viraat. And it doesn’t end there. India is building its own design — two 40,000-tonne vessels named Vishal and Vikrant. The first is due to be completed within four years.
Indonesia: While Indonesia has no dedicated aircraft- or helicopter-carrying vessels, it is exploring the concept through several homegrown designs. No decision to adopt such a program has yet been made.
Japan: This island nation’s post-World War II constitution prevents it from possessing anything that can be called an offensive weapon. As a result, word games are often played. The IJNS Izumo is an example of this. Instead of being called an aircraft carrier, the 20,000-tonne vessel has been designated as a “helicopter destroyer” — even though it can carry jump-jets. Izumo hit the water last year. A second is expected to be ordered soon. They will joins two other similar “helicopter destroyers” commissioned in the past decade, the 14,000-tonne Hyuga and Ise.
Russia: Don’t forget the former Soviet Union. While it has sold all of its older aircraft-carrying vessels, it recently bought four helicopter-dock assault ships from the French. Two of these will be based in the Pacific.
South Korea: The “goodie” on the troubled Korean peninsula took possession of its flat-top named Dokdo only a year or so ago, with one more on the way. It’s now being used to help stake its claim on islands that Japan and China also have their eyes on.
Thailand: Though it is not “new”, and is barely operational, the Chakri Naruebet nevertheless represents the ability to project air power. The carrier has been in Thai hands since 1997, but the kingdom no longer has any flyable Harrier jump-jets.
Australia: For the first time since 1982, Australia will soon have the capability to operate fixed-wing aircraft at sea. The emphasis is on the word “capability”. Two new “LHDs” (landing, helicopter, dock ships) HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra are due to enter service within the next few years. Both are fitted with flight decks and even a ski-ramp. But we don’t have any attack jets to fly off them. In the meantime they will carry helicopters, including the ARH Tiger attack helicopters.
Wave of power ... China’s military technology and strength is surging ahead, backed by a rapidly expanding economy.Source: Supplied
SUBMARINES
These stealthy but powerful weapons need a combination of long-range and ultra-quiet machinery to be effective in Asian waters. The problem is the two needs are not necessarily compatible. Diesel-electric is quiet and simple to operate. Nuclear has the range but requires enormous technical know-how. As Australia’s Collins Class submarines rapidly approach the end of their useful life, little progress has been made towards a decision on what to replace them with.
Myanmar: Myanmar will also have its first submarines by the end of next year. It has sent sailors to be trained in Pakistan while talks are well advanced for the purchase of two off-the-shelf Kilo-class diesel submarines from Russia.
China: China is replacing its six older ballistic missile submarines with a new class of 9000-tonne vessels. Each can carry a dozen ballistic missiles and puts China in an exclusive club including only the United States, Russia, France, Britain and India. Three nuclear-powered attack submarines are also soon to be replaced. At the core of China’s submarine fleet are 10 Kilo-class diesel-electric boats, with two of a new design on order.
India: While in possession of several nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines, it mostly relies on a fleet of 10 ageing Kilo-class diesel submarines. One exploded wile in port last year. Plans to replace them with six new vessels have been put on hold. However, India expects to have its own home-built nuclear ballistic missile submarine ready by 2015.
Indonesia: At the moment our closest neighbour only has two ageing boats. But plans are well advanced to replace these with 12 new submarines, likely to be supplied by either Russia or South Korea, before 2020. Key among the specifications is the ability to launch cruise missiles.
Japan: It already has 16 submarines. But it’s just announced plans to boost this number to 22. Construction of eight new diesel-electric submarines is well underway. What makes these boats unusual is their air-independent engines which don’t need the submarine to surface to “snorkel” depth to run their diesels.
Malaysia: Venturing for the first time into the underwater realm, Malaysia turned to a French-Spanish consortium for its recent $1.1 billion, two-submarine purchase. Both are now operational.
Russia: Last month the first of Russia’s post Soviet Union nuclear-powered attack submarines entered active service signalling the start of a new construction program. The Yasen-class carries new nuclear-capable cruise missiles with a range greater than 2500km. As it stands, most of Russia’s submarines in the Pacific are of 1980s vintage.
Singapore: With six older diesel-electric submarines patrolling its strategically crucial waterways, Singapore has this month announced an order for two new highly automated Type 218 submarines from Germany.
Thailand: Thailand is shopping around for up to three diesel-electric submarines as it sends young naval officers to Germany and South Korea for advance training. It is expected funding for a submarine fleet will be announced in a soon-to-be-released defence review.
Vietnam: Vietnam has ordered six Russian diesel-powered Kilo-class submarines and the first of these became operational earlier this month. The nation has been steadily improving its air and naval abilities in the face of growing territorial disputes with China and these are its first ever submarines.
Australia: We’re still grappling with the concept of replacing our six ageing and troubled homegrown Collins Class vessels. Theoretically still among the most advanced submarines in existence, there has been talk of replacing them with 12 new “evolved” homemade designs. It’s still talk, though.
Upgrading, expanding ... Indonesia is responding to increasing tensions by updating its ships and aircraft, and increasing the size of its air force. Source: Supplied
FIGHTER-ATTACK AIRCRAFT
The race for technological parity with the United States is picking up pace. And the numbers gap is also closing. Russian technology has been shared with nations such as China and India, giving both a significant shortcut in the looming arms race. As more and more money is poured into a variety of fighter, bomber and stealth projects, the United States finds itself floundering with just one troubled project - the Joint Strike Fighter.
China: In recent weeks a new J-20 prototype stealth fighter rolled off the production line. The PLA touts the design as an equal to the USAAF’s most advanced aircraft — the F-22 Raptor. It’s also pushing ahead with plans to buy a fleet of Russia’s modern heavy fighter — the Su-35. This aircraft’s most fearful capability is in the missile it is designed to carry — the K100 air-to-air missile that can reach out and shoot down aircraft up to 300km away. If this goes ahead, China is likely to have a significant technological lead in the air over both Japan and India from 2015. But it doesn’t end there. It’s also building a another new class of long-range fighters — the J-16.
India: With much of its defence budget being sunk into a significant upgrade of its navy, India’s defence chiefs have been expressing concern about the state of their air force. But relief is near. The country is in final negotiations with the French manufacturer of the Rafale combat jet for a proposed 126 aircraft purchase.
Indonesia: Our northern neighbour already has a capable fleet of 30 advanced Russian and American built fighters. Now it’s looking to replace 16 older aircraft and begin a significant expansion in size and capability. Indonesia’s defence plans call for eight additional squadrons of fighters — that’s 100 aircraft — by 2024. Among the contenders are big-ticket aircraft such as the F-15 Eagle and Russian Su-35. But it’s just not relying on unreliable off-the-shelf supplies. Indonesia has teamed up with South Korea to develop and build its own advanced fighter aircraft, the KF-X, with deliveries expected to begin in 2020.
Japan: Last year new funding was sought for a major purchasing program, including a major upgrade to its fleet of 200 F-15 fighter jets. It’s also forking out for 42 of the upcoming F-35 JSF to replace older types. A large follow-up order is expected.
Taiwan: A $5.3 billion deal between Thailand and the United States to upgrade 145 of its F16 fighters caused an outburst of indignation from China in 2011. But the very fact the deal did not involve more modern aircraft was seen as something of an appeasement. It is also upgrading its 56-strong fleet of homegrown “IDF” fighters.
Thailand: Last year the kingdom took delivery of its final batch of Swedish-build Gripen fighters, bringing the total to 12. These join 18 US-build F16 fighters that are being modernised.
Australia: What started out as an “affordable” design intended to stock the air fleets of the world’s “goodies”, the Joint Strike Fighter has since become the most troubled and expensive defence program in history. And that’s not all. A leaked Pentagon report declares our next generation of maritime surveillance aircraft — the Poseidon — can’t see and can’t shoot.
WHO’S THE LEADER?
China easily takes first place in the Asian arms race with 2.2 million active troops versus just under 1.5 million US soldiers. India (1.3 million soldiers) and North Korea (1.1 million troops) are the third and fourth largest military powers.
But troop numbers are not the only measure of strength.
The US leads the way in “stuff”, with more than 8,700 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters and 11 aircraft carriers. Their hope is that technology will overpower raw man-strength.
India is adopting a similar policy: But while the 5,900 tanks, 140 helicopters and two aircraft carriers may sound impressive — they’re not exactly cutting-edge technology.
And the United States’ dominance isn’t likely to change quickly. The US spends more than $700 billion a year on its military. This is more than the next 14 biggest spenders combined.
Nevertheless, it is estimated China will overtake US defence spending within 20 years. And the true level of military spending in the land of the rising dragon is a closely guarded secret.
Australia remains reliant on its ally, the United States, for assistance in anything beyond a minor regional policing mission. While the intervention in East Timor may have boosted our pride, it may represent the maximum extent of our ability to operate independently. And the turmoil and troubles surrounding virtually every future defence project our nation has is bound to see us fall further backwards in the local rankings in the years to come.
So, the grey question: how much does it matter?
Australia’s territory is not directly under threat, only those of our allies and neighbours. But we are members of regional alliances such as ASEAN and ANZUS and would be compelled as a responsible international citizen to “do our bit” to help our allies.
Such a future contribution will be determined by today’s defence spending.http://www.news.com.au/
No comments:
Post a Comment