Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[LancasterBomber]

couple of things. shape is not even established, its the technology sets that are being considered.

I am happy to hear that. I would welcome an extended period whereby the discussion was kept as abstract as possible particular with regard to the form factor.

I would hope those deeply involved not only have the requisite comprehensive knowledge of existing technology (as they surely will) but also the ability to step away from the technological reality of 2010 and allow a degree of lateral thinking about how we go to war (defend) in 2030/40/50.

I would hope there is a robust discussion on the strategic implications of drone vs drone warfare and how that impacts us tactically (relative to traditional 20th century naval warfare). Inherent in this discussion would be UUV and UAV from sub platforms.

I would hope there is a detailed discussion regarding the tactical deployment of human capital and the relative risk profiles associated with how close we put our human intellectual capital to the zone of engagement (or whatever happens to be the preferred military nomenclature).

I would hope there currently is a comprehensive discussion taking place regarding the strategic reality that we are a naval "defence" force and our first tactical card played will always be a responsive one. The ultimate form factor will have significant impact on where we congregate our related human capital. Pooling all our hardware and human capital resources within 25km radius, whilst organisationally efficient, has a risk profile to be considered and potentially mitigated - given that our opponent will always get 'first strike'.

I would hope there is a detailed discussion taking place regarding every single existing 'job role' being played on the Collins platform.

I would hope there is a discussion taking place around the potentiality of a significant degree of modularity (short turnaround technological refit) to suit specific operational needs (i.e deeper long run intelligence push into Asia vs a heavily armed coastal patrol/zone defence).

Essentially the discussion framework (in my opinion) fundamentally needs to focus on:

1. How do we maximise the threat (i,e maximise the unknown in the eyes of the invader)
2. How do we maximise the protection of the human capital pertaining to the strategic hardware whilst still allowing them to project the threat (particularly in an invasion scenario).
3. How do we maximise the coverage of the threat given the sheer scope of our sovereign border.

Most of all I want you guys to give me an asset I can:

a. Trust in; and
b. Push to the absolute limits and beyond.

Those are my initial thoughts and I guess time will tell. I would love to hear some more detailed technical discussions about some of the technological options on the 5-10 year horizon.

Cheers.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It is possible some "cross deck" operations may occur in future, with F-35B's from allies using our flattops for refuelling, emergency landings etc. I don't see even in the most "out there" crystal ball gazing, RAN employing their own F-35B's from these vessels.

Definately. The LHD just isn't enough of a carrier to justify purchasing expensive aircraft we don't already have. However, they don't preclude a dedicated carrier in the future and I am sure at some stage a F-35B from UK/US will touch one of our LHD's. There may be other fixed wing long range UAV we may wish to launch from them in the future.

As a LHD they are going to be far more useful than any carrier or battleship, in military and in humanitarian operations.

Recent devistation in Samoa and Indonesia highlights the possibilities of deploying a LHD to each of the effected zones providing hospital, fresh water, aid, electricity, airlift, security, deploying personel and construction equipment while also allowing evacuation of personel etc. This will build support for Australia in the region and promote the regions and Australia's interests and helping the regions stability.

 

[Crusader2000]

Sorry, the limited number of aircraft is hardly an argument against the F-35B in RAN/RAAF Service. Since the F-35B will share 80% of its content with its Air Force Cousin the F-35A. Also, Russia and Brazil operate far fewer numbers from there respective Carriers. Only operating one Carrier each. While, Australia will operate two BPE's. As a matter of fact Australia could easily operate F-35B from landbases in direct support of Ground Troops.


In short to totally disregard the F-35B as a future option for Australia. Is ludicrous to say the least.....


With all do respect

 

[Bonza]

Sorry, the limited number of aircraft is hardly an argument against the F-35B in RAN/RAAF Service. Since the F-35B will share 80% of its content with its Air Force Cousin the F-35A. Also, Russia and Brazil operate far fewer numbers from there respective Carriers. Only operating one Carrier each. While, Australia will operate two BPE's. As a matter of fact Australia could easily operate F-35B from landbases in direct support of Ground Troops.


In short to totally disregard the F-35B as a future option for Australia. Is ludicrous to say the least.....


With all do respect

Regarding what you've mentioned here, my question would be: do the sole carriers operated by Russia and Brazil respectively, in your opinion, offer a level of capability such that it's a legitimate counterpoint to the "too little space, too few fighters" argument?

I think the LHDs will be marvellous ships, but I don't think we'll be seeing F-35s operating off them. I'd rather see the LHDs used in the role for which they're optimised instead of a halfway-carrier, and if we were looking likely to spend additional cash beyond what's already earmarked, I'd prefer to see it go toward increasing other parts of fleet capability. I'm curious as to your answers to the above though.

There's some interesting old threads about this lurking around pages 21-24ish (I think) of this forum. Recommend checking them out if you're interested and haven't seen them before.

 

[Crusader2000]

Regarding what you've mentioned here, my question would be: do the sole carriers operated by Russia and Brazil respectively, in your opinion, offer a level of capability such that it's a legitimate counterpoint to the "too little space, too few fighters" argument?

I think the LHDs will be marvellous ships, but I don't think we'll be seeing F-35s operating off them. I'd rather have more capability in the rest of the fleet than a halfway-carrier. I'm curious as to your answers to the above though.

There's some interesting old threads about this lurking around pages 21-24ish (I think) of this forum. Recommend checking them out if you're interested and haven't seen them before.

Well, the USN operates just 6 Harriers from its much larger LHA's and LHD's. Yet, believes even those small numbers are worth the cost.

Also, as I stated before any F-35B's in Australian Service. Could be used not just on LHD's. But, from Land Bases as well and share much of its content with F-35A's.

 

[Bonza]

Well, the USN operates just 6 Harriers from its much larger LHA's and LHD's. Yet, believes even those small numbers are worth the cost.

Certainly, but is the capability fit of a given vessel within the US Navy relevant in this case for the Australian Navy? I admit that I don't have a definitive answer (I'm leaning towards no in this case, based on previous reading, but could be wrong), but it's worth remembering: different navies, different capability needs, and different levels of logistics and support.

Different budgets too, for that matter.

Would it also be fair to say that the viability of those six Harriers to conduct expeditionary warfare is greatly increased from a larger vessel due to a much larger capacity for fuel and ordnance? Because that seems relevant if you start making comparisons to the smaller Canberra-class.

I don't think anyone would argue whether or not they could do it. It's just a matter of whether or not the capability, when considered in unison with other Australian fleet units and with the stated needs of the RAN, is worth the time, money, and effort.

Also, as I stated before any F-35B's in Australian Service. Could be used not just on LHD's. But, from Land Bases as well and share much of its content with F-35A's.

They absolutely could. But my doubts remain centered around the suitability of the Canberras as fixed wing carriers, rather than the capability of the F-35B.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Sorry, the limited number of aircraft is hardly an argument against the F-35B in RAN/RAAF Service. Since the F-35B will share 80% of its content with its Air Force Cousin the F-35A. Also, Russia and Brazil operate far fewer numbers from there respective Carriers. Only operating one Carrier each. While, Australia will operate two BPE's. As a matter of fact Australia could easily operate F-35B from landbases in direct support of Ground Troops.


In short to totally disregard the F-35B as a future option for Australia. Is ludicrous to say the least.....


With all do respect

3 Defence Ministers, The CDF, the Chief of Air Force and the Chief of Navy and the head of NACC have all ruled out acquiring F-35B on multiple occasions.

Ludicrous? They don't think so...

With all due respect...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well, the USN operates just 6 Harriers from its much larger LHA's and LHD's. Yet, believes even those small numbers are worth the cost.

And how many AEGIS equipped escort vessels do they maintain? 80? 90?

How many large amphibious warfare vessels do they operate?

How many AEW&C/AWACS aircraft do they have?

What is their budget compared to Australia's?

We are trying to get similar capabilities into service, at obviously a much small level (in terms of numbers).

F-35B would seriously distort our force structure, meaning we would have to forgoe MANY capabilities in order to acquire it and ALSO acquire ships that are actually suitable to operate it in a permanent way. Our LHD's whilst they might be able to operate them for a short period of time are most definitely not optimised to act as any sort of carrier.

Also, as I stated before any F-35B's in Australian Service. Could be used not just on LHD's. But, from Land Bases as well and share much of its content with F-35A's.

Only by diverting numbers away from the F-35A fleet, or by a massive injection in funding could we acquire these aircraft. No injection of funding is going to happen so we have to reduce our air combat capability to include them.

F-35A operate very well from land bases too, and don't detract from RAAF's primary role...

 

[StevoJH]

Please don't compare the RAN to the USN, it wont work. The USN alone has a budget about six times that of the entire Australian Defense Force. To put things into perspective, the US COAST GUARD has a bigger budget then the RAN.

 

[Crusader2000]

Please don't compare the RAN to the USN, it wont work. The USN alone has a budget about six times that of the entire Australian Defense Force. To put things into perspective, the US COAST GUARD has a bigger budget then the RAN.

I wasn't comparing the USN with the RAN. My point was the capability of even a small number of aircraft is considered worth the cost by many navies. Like the dozen or so Su-33's operate by the Russians on the Kuznetsov or the six Skyhawks operate by Brazil from the Sao Paulo. Let's also not forget countries like Thailand (i.e. Chakri Nareubet) and Spain (i.e. Principe de Asturias). Which, operate small carriers with relatively small air wings. Many with Defense Budgets smaller than Australia.

If, Australia purchased the F-35B. They could be easily supported along with its land based cousins. (i.e. F-35A) While, other navies have totally different types that have nothing in common with there land based cousins.

 

[Crusader2000]

And how many AEGIS equipped escort vessels do they maintain? 80? 90?

The USN usually deploy one Aegis Destroyer per MEU. Which, is made up of a LHA or LHD combined with a LPD, and LSD. Personally, I doubt the RAN mix with its new LHD's will be any different.

How many large amphibious warfare vessels do they operate?

What does the size and make up of the USN have anything to do with the topic at hand? As we are discussing the benefits of STOVL(F-35B) to the RAN. If, you want to make such a comparison. Use a navy of similar size to the RAN. Which, operates small carriers and STOVL. Really, Spain will operate the very same class of ships. That is F-100 Aegis Frigates and BPE/LHD's. Funny, that they consider it worth while. Plus, the fact they don't currently plan to operate the land based F-35A.

How many AEW&C/AWACS aircraft do they have?

Again what's your point??? As you are comparing Apples and Oranges......

What is their budget compared to Australia's?

Like I've said over and over again. I was not comparing the largest Navy in the World (USN) with Australia. I "was" comparing the benefits of even a small number STOVL (F-35B's).

We are trying to get similar capabilities into service, at obviously a much small level (in terms of numbers).

F-35B would seriously distort our force structure, meaning we would have to forgoe MANY capabilities in order to acquire it and ALSO acquire ships that are actually suitable to operate it in a permanent way. Our LHD's whilst they might be able to operate them for a short period of time are most definitely not optimised to act as any sort of carrier.

Totally disagree..............Clearly, a dozen F-35B's are within the means of Australia. Which, could be easily supported and inter-graded with RAAF F-35A's. Let's not forget Australia just purchased "24" Super Hornet as a STOP GAP. Plus, the Wedgetail, AWD's, etc. etc. (all very expensive programs)

Its also likely that any purchase of F-35B's in the future. Would be many years off and after the completion of F-35A's for the RAAF. So, to say Australia won't have the resources in laughable.nfloorl:

Only by diverting numbers away from the F-35A fleet, or by a massive injection in funding could we acquire these aircraft. No injection of funding is going to happen so we have to reduce our air combat capability to include them.

F-35A operate very well from land bases too, and don't detract from RAAF's primary role...[/

QUOTE]

Sorry, Australia is not going to place a order for F-35B's today. So, today's budget has little to do with the debate at hand.

TODAY DOES NOT EQUAL TOMORROW! Many orders will come for F-35's including "B's". That are not forecasted today.

 

[Sea Toby]

Please don't compare the RAN to the USN, it wont work. The USN alone has a budget about six times that of the entire Australian Defense Force. To put things into perspective, the US COAST GUARD has a bigger budget then the RAN.

But one can compare the Italian Cavour with the Spanish Juan Carlos I of similar size. The Cavour is a light carrier with some sea lift capacity, a 180 degree turn from a sea lift ship with a small light carrier capacity. Notice the Cavour cost almost twice as much, but has the bunkerage capacity along with an enlarged flight deck crew. As noted, the Cavour's sea lift capacity is seriously reduced in capacity with the fighters aboard. For a ship which costs twice as much you can get a similar sea lift capacity if you dump the fighter aircraft, her carrier capability....

Now compare the Cavour's carrier capacity to the new Indian indigenious carrier capacity. Move up to 37-40,000 tons displacement, the ship will have triple the aircraft capacity at even higher costs.

The whole point of this exercise is to point out the Canberra LHDs were designed with a sea lift/amphibious mission in mind and not as a carrier.... The Canberra LHDs carrier capacity won't match a Cavour's or the new Vikrant carrier's capacity.... So why even try? With so few fighters aboard the ADF would be better off with just one more air tanker at ten percent of the costs....

Maybe at a later date when Australia grows to the size of a nation which can support financially a light carrier, a Vikrant or Cavour sized carrier can be built. Australia's requirement currently is for much more sea lift/amphibious capability which the Canberra LHDs were designed and are being built for....

If Australia were going to build a carrier, one might as well build a proper carrier, such as a new Vikrant or a new Queen Elizabeth.... Unfortunately, Australia can't afford one such ship much less two....

 

[Crusader2000]

But one can compare the Italian Cavour with the Spanish Juan Carlos I of similar size. The Cavour is a light carrier with some sea lift capacity, a 180 degree turn from a sea lift ship with a small light carrier capacity. Notice the Cavour cost almost twice as much, but has the bunkerage capacity along with an enlarged flight deck crew. As noted, the Cavour's sea lift capacity is seriously reduced in capacity with the fighters aboard. For a ship which costs twice as much you can get a similar sea lift capacity if you dump the fighter aircraft, her carrier capability....

Now compare the Cavour's carrier capacity to the new Indian indigenious carrier capacity. Move up to 37-40,000 tons displacement, the ship will have triple the aircraft capacity at even higher costs.

The whole point of this exercise is to point out the Canberra LHDs were designed with a sea lift/amphibious mission in mind and not as a carrier.... The Canberra LHDs carrier capacity won't match a Cavour's or the new Vikrant carrier's capacity.... So why even try? With so few fighters aboard the ADF would be better off with just one more air tanker at ten percent of the costs....

Maybe at a later date when Australia grows to the size of a nation which can support financially a light carrier, a Vikrant or Cavour sized carrier can be built. Australia's requirement currently is for much more sea lift/amphibious capability which the Canberra LHDs were designed and are being built for....

If Australia were going to build a carrier, one might as well build a proper carrier, such as a new Vikrant or a new Queen Elizabeth.... Unfortunately, Australia can't afford one such ship much less two....

The Spanish did develope the Juan Carlos (BPE) to operate from F-35B's from the very start and will do so when both enter service. Plus, the fact the Australian New LHD's are heavily based on the same design.


I am not comparing the Spainish or Australian LHD's with Carriers like the Cavour. Just pointing out the added benefits of using such STOVL Types on Small Aircraft Capable Ships. Regardless, if there Small Carriers, LHA's, LHD's, or whatever!

As a matter of fact I don't think its a stretch at all to say its very likely. That many Allied Nations will purchase F-35B's to equip such ships. With Australia, Japan, and South Korea coming to mind.

 

[PeterM]

While the LHDs could operate F-35B, it is not going to happen.

Lets not loose sight of the fact that the 100 F-35Cs being purchased are just enough to meet the RAAF requirements in replacing the F-18A and F-18F. It is not like they will stash some in a warehouse somewhere "just in case".

Any F-35B capability would either cost alot of extra money at a time when things are particularly tight or seriously impact on the RAAF's ability to fulfill their role.

 

[Crusader2000]

While the LHDs could operate F-35B, it is not going to happen.

Lets not loose sight of the fact that the 100 F-35Cs being purchased are just enough to meet the RAAF requirements in replacing the F-18A and F-18F. It is not like they will stash some in a warehouse somewhere "just in case".

Any F-35B capability would either cost alot of extra money at a time when things are particularly tight or seriously impact on the RAAF's ability to fulfill their role.

Well, that may or "may not" be the case in another 10 plus years. As we don't know the future threats nor the resouces available to Australia. Yet, considering the current "ARMS RACE" in the Pacific. I wouldn't rule anything out based on todays assumptions.

 

[PeterM]

Well, that may or "may not" be the case in another 10 plus years. As we don't know the future threats nor the resouces available to Australia. Yet, considering the current "ARMS RACE" in the Pacific. I wouldn't rule anything out based on todays assumptions.

we do know that Australia will have budget deficits until around 2014, that is when we start paying it back (by then we will owe alot).

Have no doubts, money will be extremely tight for some time.

Also defence spending is pretty well mapped out until at least 2020

 

[StingrayOZ]

The BPE is way short on fuel bunkerage for use with the F-35B. Total fuel reserves, I can't remember I think I posted in this thread back some something like 75 Sorties total.

If you had a spare fleet oiler, or massively convert the lower deck for increase fuel and arms bunkerage and extensively modify the upper deck for maintence. You could do it, but then again we need a LHD more than a carrier. The money spent would be better off buying supercobras or additional Tigers, chooks, fleet helos (we are so SHORT!), missiles (SM3,sm6,ESSM for the LHD, Tlam) etc.

As a fill in carrier for say a week with a few (<6 aircraft) once it has deployed its troops and equipment, with a very low sortie rate (5 a day), yeh it can proberly do that. If you can spare a fleet oiler to refuel it regularly if the operation is any longer than a week. We have two, so we could maybe make it two weeks.

We have a ship that could releive a proper carrier for a short period of time or provide auxillary capability to a full time carrier with no modification at all. We have a ship where we can build up skills needed for a full time carrier and make better assessments on what full time carrier we might purchase later. It will give us an excuse to work alongside USN, USMC, RN etc praciticing carrier ops (can we have a few pilots train on F-35B's?). You get to hone the skills of a carrier with out the cost and the polical fallout. We also will have ships that could relieve a single dedicated RAN carrier if need be.

Its highly unlikely at the moment Australia will get F-35B or a proper carrier. But we aren't precluding it in the future, infact we will be better placed for such a purchase (however unlikely it is). Even if we did, it would be atleast a 10 year cycle to build a carrier, build the aircraft, training and to bring it in service. In 10 years there may be some super hot UAV we can operate, which requires a different type of ship.

Sure I would like to see 6 F-35B purchased as "trainers" so that we could use them as minicarriers and be abosolutely ready to upgrade to full carriers. But 6x60 million =- 360 million. How many OCV could we get? How many Tlams? How many SM3/sm6? How many Tigers? How many NH-90's?

By 2020 Australia will have its AWD, its Collins II launching, Its LHD's in service, F-35A in service, ANZAC II launching, OCV in service/launching. That will be the point where we can decide if we want a carrier. Atleast by then we will have the escorts for it.

 

[swerve]

The Spanish did develope the Juan Carlos (BPE) to operate from F-35B's from the very start and will do so when both enter service. Plus, the fact the Australian New LHD's are heavily based on the same design.....

1) as an auxiliary carrier only, & as a secondary role only. Her main role is, & will always be, an LHD. She will function as a backup for the primary carrier when that is in refit, but mainly to maintain the proficiency of the carrier air group.

Note that the carrier & LHD roles will not be combined. It's strictly either/or, with the ship docking for fitting of carrier-specific equipment modules & sealing of the dock before embarking the air group.

2) Yes, but the F-35B capability was not one of the selection criteria. The BPE was ultimately (after all other contenders had been eliminated) chosen in competition with the Mistral class, which was obviously considered to meet the basic criteria, or wouldn't have made it that far. Mistral has no F-35B capability. Also, we know that the RAN asked about the feasibility of removing the ski-jump from the BPE, & only kept it because it would have been more expensive to redesign the bow than to build the ships without a ski-jump.

In other words, we know that -
- BPE is not planned to be used as a real aircraft carrier even by Spain, but only for STOVL training & as an emergency backup.
- The RAN didn't want the ski-jump, & seriously considered removing it.

We also know that the RAN is not buying any of the equipment modules the Spanish will fit when deploying F-35B aboard JC1. Will the Australian ships have provision for fitting them?

 

[Crusader2000]

The BPE is way short on fuel bunkerage for use with the F-35B. Total fuel reserves, I can't remember I think I posted in this thread back some something like 75 Sorties total.

If you had a spare fleet oiler, or massively convert the lower deck for increase fuel and arms bunkerage and extensively modify the upper deck for maintence. You could do it, but then again we need a LHD more than a carrier. The money spent would be better off buying supercobras or additional Tigers, chooks, fleet helos (we are so SHORT!), missiles (SM3,sm6,ESSM for the LHD, Tlam) etc.

As a fill in carrier for say a week with a few (<6 aircraft) once it has deployed its troops and equipment, with a very low sortie rate (5 a day), yeh it can proberly do that. If you can spare a fleet oiler to refuel it regularly if the operation is any longer than a week. We have two, so we could maybe make it two weeks.

We have a ship that could releive a proper carrier for a short period of time or provide auxillary capability to a full time carrier with no modification at all. We have a ship where we can build up skills needed for a full time carrier and make better assessments on what full time carrier we might purchase later. It will give us an excuse to work alongside USN, USMC, RN etc praciticing carrier ops (can we have a few pilots train on F-35B's?). You get to hone the skills of a carrier with out the cost and the polical fallout. We also will have ships that could relieve a single dedicated RAN carrier if need be.

Its highly unlikely at the moment Australia will get F-35B or a proper carrier. But we aren't precluding it in the future, infact we will be better placed for such a purchase (however unlikely it is). Even if we did, it would be atleast a 10 year cycle to build a carrier, build the aircraft, training and to bring it in service. In 10 years there may be some super hot UAV we can operate, which requires a different type of ship.

Sure I would like to see 6 F-35B purchased as "trainers" so that we could use them as minicarriers and be abosolutely ready to upgrade to full carriers. But 6x60 million =- 360 million. How many OCV could we get? How many Tlams? How many SM3/sm6? How many Tigers? How many NH-90's?

By 2020 Australia will have its AWD, its Collins II launching, Its LHD's in service, F-35A in service, ANZAC II launching, OCV in service/launching. That will be the point where we can decide if we want a carrier. Atleast by then we will have the escorts for it.

I never compared the BPE's as true Aircraft Carriers. As a matter of fact even large LHA's like the American Wasp Class. Could nor sustain large storie rates for any period of time without constant re-supply. Regardless, that doesn't make a small number of F-35B's as useless. Which, is likely why Spain is equiping its BPE's to operate F-35B's from the start.....

 

[Crusader2000]

1) as an auxiliary carrier only, & as a secondary role only. Her main role is, & will always be, an LHD. She will function as a backup for the primary carrier when that is in refit, but mainly to maintain the proficiency of the carrier air group.

Agreed.................the BPE is not a Aircraft Carrier but a LHD/LHA. Regardless, even a small number of F-35B's. Could provide valuable air support for the Troops and even Air Defense.

Note that the carrier & LHD roles will not be combined. It's strictly either/or, with the ship docking for fitting of carrier-specific equipment modules & sealing of the dock before embarking the air group.

Would you like to provide a source? While the LHD may not be able to carrier a full load of Vehicles and F-35B's. That is not to say she couldn't carry a little less of the former to accommodate a few of the latter. I personally doubt its a "all or nothing" proposition?

2) Yes, but the F-35B capability was not one of the selection criteria. The BPE was ultimately (after all other contenders had been eliminated) chosen in competition with the Mistral class, which was obviously considered to meet the basic criteria, or wouldn't have made it that far. Mistral has no F-35B capability. Also, we know that the RAN asked about the feasibility of removing the ski-jump from the BPE, & only kept it because it would have been more expensive to redesign the bow than to build the ships without a ski-jump.

That is a big assumption. For all we know the Mistral may have lost out because the advantage of the BPE being capable of operating STOVL Aircraft. (i.e.F-35)

In other words, we know that -
- BPE is not planned to be used as a real aircraft carrier even by Spain, but only for STOVL training & as an emergency backup.
- The RAN didn't want the ski-jump, & seriously considered removing it.

Sorry, Spain will in fact operate F-35B's from the BPE's in a number of roles. Which, is why it was designed to operate them in the first place. .

We also know that the RAN is not buying any of the equipment modules the Spanish will fit when deploying F-35B aboard JC1. Will the Australian ships have provision for fitting them?

Again we are talking about the the future. (10 years of more) All I am saying is I see the needs and believe its very likely at some point. While, others won't even consider it a possibility...........


Funny, many say the same thing about South Korea and Japan. Personally, I believe the former two and Australia will all receive F-35B's at some point. Especially, considering the Military build-up in China and the current Arms Race in the Pacific Region.