New major military powers

[gf0012-aust]

Personally I kind of doubt that the Collins are any better of China's own latest nuclear and diesel subs considering the problems the Collins have. China's own subs are not the best, compared to the finest elswhere, maybe like the Gotlands, or the Type 212/214s, but the Collins is far from the finest given its troubled history. It does not even seem to have the asymmetrical propellers or the anecholic tiles and other sound reduction you see in other submarines. Against the Oyashio class of Japan, the Type 214s being procured by Korea, the Scorpenes being procured by India? And the Collins still have to import systems elsewhere, like the Harpoons, the Link-11, the Mk48s and all the sonars.

Being able to maintain F-111s does not mean you can manufacture it. And the many modifications done to it are still with US assistance.

As for the German engines China makes, it was thought by the Germans and supervised by the Germans. Why do you think its called a license? As a matter of fact, China also makes 1500hp diesel engines that power the Leopards and use them for its own tanks. Unless you can come up with numbers or straight data, you cannot claim that license built is being inferior. Your opinion cannot be taken as factual.

They tried exporting Holdens to other parts of South East Asia, and it was a failure.

LOL, exporting cars equates to what?- seen the problems that BMW had with chinese builds?

when china manages to develop signature management for their subs, then I'll wake up and panic. We already know how many decibels lower a collins is than any kilo in the water.

I'm happy for you to believe what you want - but having worked on Collins and having been part of the problem solving process - you're just like an australian journalist - big on rhetoric and short on actual information.

CBASS is an australian raft of datasets mated to a US torpedo - we could mate it to any torpedo and get the same result.

Sig Management against anechoic tiles and a hull that isn't even wave tanked for surge?

BYG-1 against a chinese combat system? get real.

btw, China has to import scottish transducers for harbour protection - so she's a generation behind acoustic management.

I'd pick 4 other subs before I picked a chinese kilo as being combat effective - and not against a gen 2 Collins by any margin.

As for factual issues and technical credibility - I'm far better placed to comment on chinese kilos - let alone Collins than you are.

(the Acoustic Warfare Officers knickname for PLAN Kilos is "kelvinators" - that should give you a hint about their acoustic management capability) Everytime the PLAN sends out their ferrets to Talisman Saber - the Kilos are picked up even though they're pretending that they aren't there.

You do also understand that the Gotland is nicknamed "mini-me" as its a smaller version of Collins? - except its nowhere near the sensory capability of its larger brethren (thats without BYG-1 as well). part of the contractual grief that existed between OzGovt and Kockums was that we believed that the Swedes used Collins on-development as part of the Gotlands construction.

small but critical fact - Kilos don't have the onboard power to run the sensor systems that larger conventional fleet subs like Collins and the Oyashios do. if you can't see, you can't fight. if you're short sighted, then you'll get killed. The size of Collins and Oyashio should give you a hint as to their mission brief.

 

[Schumacher]

Hard to imagine some are trying compare Aust with China in terms of overall military power, degree of competence & independence in weapons production & warfare ..... if I understand correctly what some posts are trying to say.
Aust is clearly a middle power in the rank of SK, S'pore, Canada, Dutch, Spain, Israel etc, with some pockets of excellence which are indeed world leading, as do the other middle powers. I'd even put Aust near the top in this group which is already something to be proud of.
I'm afraid trying to put Aust among the big 5, Germany, Japan is something only fanboys would do.

 

[XaNDeR]

Thats pretty much true what you said , but I think most people said that Australia is developing fast and has potential for becoming strong.

 

[Bunyip]

Hard to imagine some are trying compare Aust with China in terms of overall military power, degree of competence & independence in weapons production & warfare ..... if I understand correctly what some posts are trying to say.
Aust is clearly a middle power in the rank of SK, S'pore, Canada, Dutch, Spain, Israel etc, with some pockets of excellence which are indeed world leading, as do the other middle powers. I'd even put Aust near the top in this group which is already something to be proud of.
I'm afraid trying to put Aust among the big 5, Germany, Japan is something only fanboys would do.

mate no one here is trying to compare aus to china in terms of military power. all we are doing is trying to assert the fact that aus has the industrial capabilities to be self sufficient and indeed to export some of the more niche capabilities. also i think many people underestimate the capability of australias defence force. it packs a punch unproportionate to its size and is very creative given what funding it has available to it.

 

[Schumacher]

mate no one here is trying to compare aus to china in terms of military power. all we are doing is trying to assert the fact that aus has the industrial capabilities to be self sufficient and indeed to export some of the more niche capabilities. also i think many people underestimate the capability of australias defence force. it packs a punch unproportionate to its size and is very creative given what funding it has available to it.

Well, then I agree. For a nation of size of about 20 million, the Aussies are indeed very much above many other nations of similar or even much bigger size in terms of industrial & military strengths. Very creative as well, as I believe Aussies have the highest per capita of Nobel prize winners.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hard to imagine some are trying compare Aust with China in terms of overall military power, degree of competence & independence in weapons production & warfare ..... if I understand correctly what some posts are trying to say.
Aust is clearly a middle power in the rank of SK, S'pore, Canada, Dutch, Spain, Israel etc, with some pockets of excellence which are indeed world leading, as do the other middle powers. I'd even put Aust near the top in this group which is already something to be proud of.
I'm afraid trying to put Aust among the big 5, Germany, Japan is something only fanboys would do.

I'm not sure anyone is trying to argue that Australia should be in a "Top 5" ranking. Politically thats never been of concern to any Aust Govt of the day. We are a regional power - nothing more and nothing less. Our population and geography alone limits our ability to overmatch what many regard as major powers.

I do agree with you that there are areas where we have niche competency, and in some areas we have clearer superiority than some of the countries that typically get lauded as major powers. (Sensor development, AI development, hypersonics etc....) In some areas Aust does have overmatch - but that is balanced very quickly by the reality of persistance issues.

Quite frankly, any talk of Aust elevated beyond regional power is a nonsense.

Politically, militarily, idealogically, publicly - there is no interest.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I'm afraid trying to put Aust among the big 5, Germany, Japan is something only fanboys would do.

Depends how you are ranking. In some areas Australia would be above Germany or Japan.

For one Germany or Japan lack the political will to project power for obvious reasons. Australia has a navy (generally concidered) stronger than Germany in terms of power projection. In terms of radar networks its superior to both.

Defensive power is all and good (and germany and Japan out rank Australia by many factors). But to be a big regional power you must have projection.

Atleast Australia does not need US troops or equipment to protect itself, unlike Korea and Japan. As I said, this frees its resources to focus on projection (unlike Israel).

 

[kato]

For one Germany or Japan lack the political will to project power for obvious reasons. Australia has a navy (generally concidered) stronger than Germany in terms of power projection.
Defensive power is all and good (and germany and Japan out rank Australia by many factors). But to be a big regional power you must have projection.

Navy - sure (with the three vintage-60s LSTs). However, unlike Australia (or Japan), Germany doesn't need sealift/amphibious assets to project power within its region (Europe).
Germany can (and does) project power and support deployed troops via land (Bosnia, Kosovo) and air (Afghanistan). The only naval troop support scenario Germany has faced so far was DR Congo, where airlifted troops were supported by two supply ships offshore.

In airlift power projection, Australia is currently edging forward in comparison (with 4 C-17; in light/medium transport, Germany clearly has the lead with 83 C-160 vs 10 DHC-4 + 20 C-130). Though once Germany gets its 60 A400M, that'll be over again.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yes, each power must be approprate for its region and its role.

But then again, for the region Australia has good capability. Australia won't be transporting masses of tanks or huge numbers of conscripts in its theater of projection. It needs aircraft that can use short runways. C28J spartans, C130 and C17s are perfect. Its sea lift will be huge with the two LHD's and Roro's.

You can't just compare personel and equipment numbers and say "This power is greater than that power". Or claim a certain country with a wide range of capabilities isn't a rising power, because its civilian population is too small.

 

[t68]

hi guys


I think what stringray oz is talking about is we have the capabilty to do our own research and development and/or have the industial base to make our own eqiupment if or ever the needs arose.

Waylander is correct that it will take time to implement this line of capabilty and it just does not happen over night but takes several years to achieve,but at the end of the day all it does is take money and resource that could be used somewhere else.

If we can buy a design and the go about making it better and to suit or needs whats wrong with that.someone gets to be in a job overseas,here also ,keeps the world economy ticking along.


regards
tom

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

G'day tom.

Seems like you sumed up the argument pretty well. Its hard to keep balanced and unbiased when you're talking about your own nation.

On annother note, there has been a large ammount of discussion in this thread on the rising powers in south and east asia such as India and China. This is understandable given the fact that both of these nations were (and still are to a large degree) third world, their rapid rise is allmost miraculous.

However there is a major rising power that has been compleatly overlooked, even claimed to be in decline, but will be a superpower in the same leuge as the US & PROC, Europe. At the moment Europe is a group major regional and global powers that are loosely allied and the major european nations are amongst the most developed and wealthy in the world. But this is about new powers, and there is no metoeric economic rise of any of the major european nations, in some cases their population is even in decline. However europe's rise less nothing to do with cheap labour and industrialisation, it went through those proscesses 100 years ago. Its engine for its rise to superpower status is less visable and therefore less exiting although just as important. Europes growth engine is its slow but steady slog towards federalisation. Its a path started by napoleon and marked by the EU, European Parliament and the introduction of the EURO. This proscess is painfully slow, which is understandble given the cultural complexity of europe, so it atracts less attention. But the movement will be allmost unstopable, it will however take time.

The end result of european federalisation will be the military and economic capability of several world leaders, such as France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and the ballance of the other smaller EU nations such as denmark, belbium nad the netherlands, consolidated under one flag, as one coherent millitary body under a single unified foregin policy. The military capability and economic might of a true "European Union" would be on par with the US & PROC, with the global influence to match. This transformation to a truely united europe should happen in a similar timeframe to china being in a realistic place to seriosly challange the US, i.e. in 50 odd years.

This political, rather than economic, movement has a potential to have a larger geo-strategic impact than the rise of china IMHO.

 

[Gripenator]

btw, China has to import scottish transducers for harbour protection - so she's a generation behind acoustic management.

(the Acoustic Warfare Officers knickname for PLAN Kilos is "kelvinators" - that should give you a hint about their acoustic management capability) Everytime the PLAN sends out their ferrets to Talisman Saber - the Kilos are picked up even though they're pretending that they aren't there.

I second that.

Kockums indeed did use information gleaned from the Collins project, I don't know exactly what (I guess noise reduction components) but it seems they made a mess of the project requiring US Navy consultants to be flown in at the Australian taxpayer's expense as well as new equipment such as the BYG-1 mentioned

Regarding the Scottish Transducer issue, I believe the Chicoms bought a couple using a front company and reversed-engineered them (read: stole the technology), most analysts believe the PRC will not hit Taiwan until the PLAN achieves an accepted level of acoustic performance from its subs and/or builds enough to compensate for losses. But the PLAN is rapidly acquiring technology from overseas ("tech-bleed") and its tech stealing/acquisition capabilities should not be underestimated-just two years ago our Säkerhetspolisen arrested a PRC national who attempted to bribe an executive of Oceanic-Creations to transfer sensitive radar reducing materials used on our latest Visby class corvettes. However, it will be a while before they can integrate all of their loot.

I am also amazed that the Type 636 Kilo is that noisy-I would have thought Rubin improved their latest Kilo offering from the 877s out of Baltiysk that make such a racket in our waters. PLAN submarines shadowing Talisman Saber? I hope you bubbleheads made sure circling P-3s gave them an earful of active sonar

 

[ejaz007]

Can someone explain what are the guidelines or generally acceptable rules for ranking a military power?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Can someone explain what are the guidelines or generally acceptable rules for ranking a military power?

Well its all based on the size of the military, how well trained the troops are and how advainsed to equipment is. Here is my opinion on the top 5 military powers:

1. U.S.A.
2. Russia
3. China
4. India
5. U.K.

 

[mysterious]

One of the guidelines should be 'how much influence that power wields globally not just regionally'. That be the case, you can discount India & put Japan or even Australia in there.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

One of the guidelines should be 'how much influence that power wields globally not just regionally'. That be the case, you can discount India & put Japan or even Australia in there.

Nether one of them counts. Especially Japan since it is only for self defense and it is too small. Australia? No way, it's military is way too small to be a global power... a regional power then yes.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Nether one of them counts. Especially Japan since it is only for self defense and it is too small. Australia? No way, it's military is way too small to be a global power... a regional power then yes.

You need to re-read Mysterious comment again.

He is referring to softpower - and that is a measurement that has been more and more regarded as one of the empirical measurements when defining a countries capability.

military power is not the only major measurement of influence, and in softpower terms, it can be absolutely useless.

 

[Grand Danois]

Actually, I learned a new term recently: Normative Power.

Some excerpts:

...Lastly, British academic Steven Lukes added a 3rd dimension of power, preference-shaping, which he claimed was another important aspect of normative power in politics which entails theoretical views similar to notions of cultural hegemony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

European Commission President Barroso agrees with DIIS researcher Ian Manners

President Barroso comments on the work of DIIS Senior Researcher Ian Manners: ‘in terms of normative power, I broadly agree’


After being voted one of the five most important works on the EU of the last decade by the members of EUSA, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso read and commented on the work of Ian Manners, DIIS Senior Researcher and Head of the EU Internal Dynamics unit. ‘Normative Power Europe: a contradiction in terms?’ written by Ian Manners and first published in the Journal of Common Market Studies in 2002, has now been read and reflected on by European Commission President Barroso. In an interview with UACES Member Professor John Peterson, President Barroso states that he agrees with Ian Manners ‘…in terms of normative power, I broadly agree: we are one of the most important, if not the most important, normative powers in the world’.

http://www.diis.dk/sw40417.asp

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Normative Power: The European Practice of Region Building and the Case of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP)
Emanuel Adler, University of Toronto and Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Beverly Crawford, University of California, Berkeley

ABSTRACT:
This paper lays out a normative approach to the study of power in International Relations. This approach emphasizes the role of cooperative security practices, region building, and pluralistic integration in order to achieve peaceful change. The paper discusses the challenges to cooperative security practices in the Euro-Med process, a process that aims to promote the construction of a Mediterranean “region” of stability and peace. In order to understand what lies behind the EU's use of use of these practices, this paper suggests that they represent the application of “normative power” (Manners 2002: 240) in international relations. The practice of normative power differs significantly from a traditional understanding of the use of power in international relations. The paper assess the potential this concept of normative power to promote a shared sense of security in, and peoples' regional identification with, spaces and socially constructed regions that transcend the cultural and civilization borders of the Mediterranean region.

http://repositories.cdlib.org/ies/040400/

 

[paskal]

Nether one of them counts. Especially Japan since it is only for self defense and it is too small. Australia? No way, it's military is way too small to be a global power... a regional power then yes.

australia now doesnt have the ability yet i but soon i think it will
if i am not mistaken ausrtralia will be gettinga the f-22 from us and recently they have just purcahsed the m1a1 abrahams.....

their air force powers havent suffer too much with a few f-18 super hornets...
their only weakness is the number!

 

[Tasman]

if i am not mistaken ausrtralia will be gettinga the f-22 from us !

I presume you mean the F-35! As has been stated many times in this forum neither the Australian government nor the airforce has shown any interest in the F-22 and the US government has made it very clear it is not for sale in any case.

Tas