With the recent announcement that Vice Admiral Johnston will be replacing General Campbell as Chief of Defence Force, in particular with him being the first Admiral in that role in 22 years, is there anything that the more knowledgable members of this forum would have to say about his attributes and aptitude for the role?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I have zero knowledge about this appointment but I would hazard a guess pollies realize how critical the RAN will be in the coming decade and beyond. Advancing the AUKUS SSN program is essential so a naval person makes sense.
I think that takes place a bit later than you’re suggesting But it’s is no doubt an issue. How Severe Are China's Demographic Challenges? | ChinaPower Project
Nope. They’ve got a big demographic bulge in the mid 40s to late 50s who are all retiring right now. Their retirement has started already and will continue over the next 15 years. China’s labour force is going shrink from around 990m to around 740m in the 2040s (China: working-age population 1980-2050 | Statista) or a 22.5% shrinking of the economy all else equal. And all else isn’t equal, as they will need to dedicate and increasingly larger share of the workforce to medical service and aged care, and an increase in the budget to pensions and other social services.
The rate and scale of this decline is unprecedented except perhaps during the black plague. And it’s starting now.
I’ll offer a counter opinion; I wouldn’t be overstating his naval background. He’s been chosen as he is the most suitable human for the role, While there may be a subtle effect on his decision making. In many respects, his job as VCDF is more important when it comes to SSN/future fleet, as VCDF is responsible for Force Design and Force Integration.
As hauritz points out the economic implications of that war for Australia are so dire that SSNs are likely off the shopping list (unless the new Chinese government was very friendly).
It's certainly worth worrying about but I wouldn't get too excited. It's important to be sure - exports to China make up 10% of our GDP - but our exposure isn't as bad it looks. In a worst case scenario (trade with China breaks down altogether) we may have to sell those commodities on the open market at prevailing prices. Perhaps in the short term we take a 5% hit to GDP. That's a really painful, but still not at the levels seen in many Western European countries during the GFC. It's manageable.
But in the medium term Australia will be just fine, as long as we strike sensible trade deals with India and Indonesia, whose demographic profile makes them the most likely future engines of economic growth. As I mentioned earlier the US is also reindustrialising on a staggering scale. A tremendous amount of steel and other commodities is required to enable this.
This transition needs to happen anyway as China's savings rate and rate of household formation, and hence demand for property, plummets over the next decade. The question is will it be a short sharp shock or a longer period. As long as our current and future governments don't make a mess of things we'll be just fine.
Getting slightly off topic, but the much bigger threat to our ability to sustain Defence spending comes when the housing bubble ultimately pops.
We can look at Japan and Italy to see how their countries fare to see the effect on the economy and society, since they're about 15 years ahead. Both economically robust last 12 months, but if you search articles, the aging is affecting towns, and the rise in dementia sufferers means hundreds just disappear every year when they wander out of their homes.
This is another reason why imho think if China invades Taiwan (or West Taiwan invades Taiwan proper, lol), it'll happen this decade, and it's a problem for Aust since we will hardly be able to assist naval wise. (Air is a different matter, but not for this thraad)
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Is there are dedicated China thread we should be having this conversation in?
My question regarding Chinese demographics would be to question what aged care is like in China. How much investment is actually present? Will the elderly be looked after in aged care facilities as would be common in the west? Or will families be expected to look after their elderly family members?
The answer to this question would have huge implication as to how many people will be available for industry, government and other sectors relative to the number tied down by the healthcare sector.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Done two postings with him in the past decade. He is outstanding. He listens, grasps problems quickly, knows his people. More than happy to prioritise what is needed over what is popular or any service bias. A realist who asks pointed questions that go well beyond simple 2nd order effects. Genuinely cares for the soldiers/sailors/airmen. You cannot tap dance or go in unprepared. In the 3-star pool at work he was universally picked, and wanted, to be CDF.
Upgrade from Angus regardless of who got the job.
Living with your children / grandchildren and being cared for by them is the norm. China’s official policy is “9073” - 90% cared for by family, 7% in community care and 3% in aged care. So you’ll soon have 1 grandchild looking after two parents and possibly four grandparents.
The one child policy has really screwed them.
This is going to have significant impacts on how much they produce, and how big the PLA can be.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I wonder when the frustrated grandchildren caregivers will feel comfortable defacing A-H Mao memorials for his stupidity albeit much blame should be on parents as well insisting on male children.
Last edited:
The reality will probably be closer to 3790. Personally I can’t see China willingly sacrifice a big percentage of its 20 to 40 age group over Taiwan. If we can keep them contained for another 10 to 20 years demographics may well fix that problem.
Of course that won’t be the end of it for Australia as we would then have to contend with two more rising regional superpowers in the form of India and Indonesia who definitely will not be hindered by demographics.
The crystal ball is a little blurry but I feel the ongoing effect of Chinese expansionism will be felt for the rest of this century as a number of regional powers, including Australia, will have considerably beefed up their militaries.
Even if the Chinese problem is abated I can’t see any return to the status quo for Australia.
Of course that won’t be the end of it for Australia as we would then have to contend with two more rising regional superpowers in the form of India and Indonesia who definitely will not be hindered by demographics.
The crystal ball is a little blurry but I feel the ongoing effect of Chinese expansionism will be felt for the rest of this century as a number of regional powers, including Australia, will have considerably beefed up their militaries.
Even if the Chinese problem is abated I can’t see any return to the status quo for Australia.
Interesting conversation on the potential for conflict in our region.
For my two bobs worth, while China has a clearly articulated desire to reclaim Taiwan, their leadership has a greater desire to remain in government. That ability to remain in power has always been predicated on improving the standard of living of the population (the do what we say and we will make you wealthy principle). This is what avoids a revolution, and the government deeply knows this.
I would suggest that the Chinese government recognises that, while there is a marginal opportunity to defeat Taiwan, the cost is likely significant and the population will feel it, potentially enough to make people respond by rebelling enmass.
I'm sure the Chinese government has seen the mess that is Ukraine, understand that conquering a county in three days is not a realistic outcome, and see that Russia is being slowly bled dry with no reasonable exit ramp. I'm sure this gives them pause for thought.
They would also see the problems dealing with asymetic defences, and despite America's chaotic politics, will note one of the few galvanising issues in America is an anti Chinese sentiment.
I think they are also starting to note how countries around them (including Australia) are turning against them, consolidating in aliances and rapidly arming.
Putting all that together, I would view that they consider the best way forward is to continue be belligerent, bullying and engage in sabre rattling across the South China Sea (i.e more of what they are doing now). It goes down well internally, keeps others on edge, doesn't risk economic/political collapse, continues to fund the military (a powerful polical group in their own right) and may possibly wear external opponents down. I would consider they will continue this strategy, pushing it as hard as they can without triggering an actual hot war. They can maintain this approach with a declining population and economy for as long as they want. It keeps the status quo, which means they stay in power.
So the most likely end outcome is another cold war (and I would suggest it has already started), just this time in our back yard rather than Europe. The previous one lasted for 45 years, so military buildup/modernisation strategies need to last over this kind of time frame. It's a marathon, not a sprint.
From a western point of view, provided that China is always presented with an outcome that leads to the economic destruction of their population, then a hot war is likely to be avoided
Bringing it all back to an Australian Navy 2.0 relevant theme, I don't see a major concern with the shipbuilding program presented recently. It's a commitment to investment over the medium and long term, with the material benefit occuring over the 2030's and into the 40's when this cold war will still be ongoing and probably reaching its peak. And it will give us an ability to act autonomously in our region.
In the short term the deterrence burden is going to be on Japan and Korea (both of whom are substantially more advanced in their defence modernisation programs) plus the US, with Australia coming online later. Others such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, and the Philipines are all doing their bit, just more to their budgets.
My point is that I view the future as a fatiguing siege, rather than a quick blow up, hence less need for ships and other gear now. Our better current investment is setting our industry up to maintain a strong navy (and army and air force) over the next 50 years.
For my two bobs worth, while China has a clearly articulated desire to reclaim Taiwan, their leadership has a greater desire to remain in government. That ability to remain in power has always been predicated on improving the standard of living of the population (the do what we say and we will make you wealthy principle). This is what avoids a revolution, and the government deeply knows this.
I would suggest that the Chinese government recognises that, while there is a marginal opportunity to defeat Taiwan, the cost is likely significant and the population will feel it, potentially enough to make people respond by rebelling enmass.
I'm sure the Chinese government has seen the mess that is Ukraine, understand that conquering a county in three days is not a realistic outcome, and see that Russia is being slowly bled dry with no reasonable exit ramp. I'm sure this gives them pause for thought.
They would also see the problems dealing with asymetic defences, and despite America's chaotic politics, will note one of the few galvanising issues in America is an anti Chinese sentiment.
I think they are also starting to note how countries around them (including Australia) are turning against them, consolidating in aliances and rapidly arming.
Putting all that together, I would view that they consider the best way forward is to continue be belligerent, bullying and engage in sabre rattling across the South China Sea (i.e more of what they are doing now). It goes down well internally, keeps others on edge, doesn't risk economic/political collapse, continues to fund the military (a powerful polical group in their own right) and may possibly wear external opponents down. I would consider they will continue this strategy, pushing it as hard as they can without triggering an actual hot war. They can maintain this approach with a declining population and economy for as long as they want. It keeps the status quo, which means they stay in power.
So the most likely end outcome is another cold war (and I would suggest it has already started), just this time in our back yard rather than Europe. The previous one lasted for 45 years, so military buildup/modernisation strategies need to last over this kind of time frame. It's a marathon, not a sprint.
From a western point of view, provided that China is always presented with an outcome that leads to the economic destruction of their population, then a hot war is likely to be avoided
Bringing it all back to an Australian Navy 2.0 relevant theme, I don't see a major concern with the shipbuilding program presented recently. It's a commitment to investment over the medium and long term, with the material benefit occuring over the 2030's and into the 40's when this cold war will still be ongoing and probably reaching its peak. And it will give us an ability to act autonomously in our region.
In the short term the deterrence burden is going to be on Japan and Korea (both of whom are substantially more advanced in their defence modernisation programs) plus the US, with Australia coming online later. Others such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, and the Philipines are all doing their bit, just more to their budgets.
My point is that I view the future as a fatiguing siege, rather than a quick blow up, hence less need for ships and other gear now. Our better current investment is setting our industry up to maintain a strong navy (and army and air force) over the next 50 years.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
One thing that China would be watching closely is how many missiles the US & its Allies are firing in the Red Sea and in the defence of Israel, as well as given to Ukraine. If they suspect that the amount of missiles in reserve are depleted, it may embolden them to move earlier than estimated.
The fact that the very expensive SM-3’s have been fired indicates the level of support that the US is prepared to give Israel. They will of course benefit from analysing its performance in this live fire situation.
US Navy warships shot down Iranian missiles with a weapon they've never used in combat before
The fact that the very expensive SM-3’s have been fired indicates the level of support that the US is prepared to give Israel. They will of course benefit from analysing its performance in this live fire situation.
US Navy warships shot down Iranian missiles with a weapon they've never used in combat before
Maybe, maybe not. Thing is, almost every rich country is undegoing population decline too except a few Western countries like USA and us. So when China has 250 m less, Taiwan might have, say a decline of 20-30% in population as well (just a guess, dont flame me), making an invasion easier, since less people but they have built all the hardware.
Still, fingers crossed the only troubles Taiwan faces are natural (earthquakes etc).
Our naval decline just got a tad worse. Indonesia is picking up x2 PPA's from Italy. Their navy is modernising faster than ours. I mean this as a sign of Australia's issues, not that Indonesia is in any way an enemy.
Indonesia may or may not be a future rival. Problem is that Australia and the rest of Asia are currently growing their military in the face of the Chinese threat and even if China were to go away you would still end up with a lot more warships, submarines, combat aircraft and missiles in this region then we previously had. The whole strategic dynamics of this region have probably been permanently changed.
National defence strategy
For those who have trouble sleeping, here is some good bed time reading material. The 2024 National Defence Strategy and Integrated Investment Plan came out today. They provide some more meat on the bones in regards to the plan.
Should provide plenty to discuss.
For those who have trouble sleeping, here is some good bed time reading material. The 2024 National Defence Strategy and Integrated Investment Plan came out today. They provide some more meat on the bones in regards to the plan.
Should provide plenty to discuss.