downunderblue
Well-Known Member
I have to say I disagree with the above, not to say there aren’t challenges posed in some of the comments (which I would argue could be overcome), but I would reiterate the main objective of any armed force is to actually deter future conflict.
We are in an age of great power competition where our interests are closely aligned in maintaining the status quo (rules based order) in NE/SE Asia and the Western Pacific. China however is seeking to change the regional balance leading us and several other neighbouring nations to fear future PRC coercion and the erosion of their sovereignty. Efforts to historically economically and politically coerce us have been unsuccessful because we stood strong. China had more to lose in a trade war with us so eventually they put away their 15 claims and gave up returning to the rules based status quo.
Militarily you have to ask what we possess of real strength to deter any military conflict. Our real asset is our geography- a third island chain fixed aircraft carrier and forward staging base to allow our main ally to do the real heavy lifting. I've always been very supportive of the SSN's because they put sufficient doubt in a opposition decision maker mind when determining whether they can win a future conflict. Their benefit is of significant tactical and operational value but I would argue their real benefit is strategically how they deter conflict.
There is significant program risk though with AUKUS and no plan B. I would argue in the same vein that the real value of a B-21 acquisition is similar in their projected deterrence value. An SSN can be anywhere ready to hit you, as does a B-21, and whilst in reality we could be talking about 2 fwd deployed subs here and a squadron there, they do add up in addition to a powerful reiteration to our most important ally that we are more than just a fwd staging base.
Now not all defense aquisitions are of deterrent value. It would be pointless to have SSN's or a B-21 squadron if you dont have the ability to defend them. However every acquisition needs to be measured on how it improves our long term security and a main way to do that is to deter conflict in the first place.
Now I could go on but I don’t have the time as of now. I'm not saying there aren’t obstacles, but in terms of deterrent value I would conclude that a handful of 1500km Tomahawks fired off a destroyer won’t cut it. Ask yourself what will and what would give you pause as an operational commander of an opposing force. The SSN's will be awesome, but what else do we have on top of how do we mitigate their loss if we fail to obtain the first three boats on time.
We are in an age of great power competition where our interests are closely aligned in maintaining the status quo (rules based order) in NE/SE Asia and the Western Pacific. China however is seeking to change the regional balance leading us and several other neighbouring nations to fear future PRC coercion and the erosion of their sovereignty. Efforts to historically economically and politically coerce us have been unsuccessful because we stood strong. China had more to lose in a trade war with us so eventually they put away their 15 claims and gave up returning to the rules based status quo.
Militarily you have to ask what we possess of real strength to deter any military conflict. Our real asset is our geography- a third island chain fixed aircraft carrier and forward staging base to allow our main ally to do the real heavy lifting. I've always been very supportive of the SSN's because they put sufficient doubt in a opposition decision maker mind when determining whether they can win a future conflict. Their benefit is of significant tactical and operational value but I would argue their real benefit is strategically how they deter conflict.
There is significant program risk though with AUKUS and no plan B. I would argue in the same vein that the real value of a B-21 acquisition is similar in their projected deterrence value. An SSN can be anywhere ready to hit you, as does a B-21, and whilst in reality we could be talking about 2 fwd deployed subs here and a squadron there, they do add up in addition to a powerful reiteration to our most important ally that we are more than just a fwd staging base.
Now not all defense aquisitions are of deterrent value. It would be pointless to have SSN's or a B-21 squadron if you dont have the ability to defend them. However every acquisition needs to be measured on how it improves our long term security and a main way to do that is to deter conflict in the first place.
Now I could go on but I don’t have the time as of now. I'm not saying there aren’t obstacles, but in terms of deterrent value I would conclude that a handful of 1500km Tomahawks fired off a destroyer won’t cut it. Ask yourself what will and what would give you pause as an operational commander of an opposing force. The SSN's will be awesome, but what else do we have on top of how do we mitigate their loss if we fail to obtain the first three boats on time.