Australia's population is very concentrated - 60% in 5 metro areas. Sea based defense would give them flexibility to shift coverage as needed to protect their assets and people.
The metro population is the double edge sword for the PRC. It is easier for them to attack and control the government of AUS than AUS herself. A large fraction of Asian ethnicities are concentrated in enclaves around those same metro areas. The exurb and rural population culturally more closely resembles that of Appalachia (outside of Atlanta, Charlotte, and Pittsburgh) or Texas (outside of DFW, Houston, and SA). The PRC efforts would be better spent trying to coopt and control the legitimate levers of AUS government instead of trying to control AUS herself. AUS area is about 12x that of TX (about the same as UKR) and about 16x of Appalachia. Urbanization in AUS has trended upward since WW2 even faster than in the US.
Plus Australia’s west coast is incredibly lengthy and has only two small population centers very distant from each other so sea borne defense is vital along their western coast.
I won't open the Germany First can of worms, but...
As it turned out, the US was perfectly capable of dealing with the Japanese concurrently. It would be interesting to see how focusing effort on Japan would have changed the history.
I still like the AEGIS ashore system as a manned air defense headquarters but it needs more self protection capabilities these days against drones. Secondary launchers with SM2 systems and the new AA Hydras would help. Also, it would be a good place for a laser based defense system.
One of the lessons from Ukraine, and really, the last almost century, is that if it is static it gets hit with whatever the artillery or air there is. Be it tube, dumb bombs, drones or ICBMs. If you are stationary you are at the mercy of the enemies capabilities. And with enemies who have good capability, that's not a good place.
From what I've read, the US has four or five destroyers off the coast of Israel providing air defense for that country from Iranian attacks. The same articles point out that the US sea-based systems are taking down the majority of the missiles intercepted, more than the Iron Dome system operated by Israel. Given that there are differences in geography and weapons, I wonder if this supports the argument for a sea-based defense system for Australia.
you need to consider that the strategies are different. I suspect that the US is shooting a lot more because they don't calculate impact locations, while the IDf is ranking threats before launch.
That does raise some interesting questions. If the US ships aren't worried about where the debris falls, I imagine the Israelis would be very unhappy. But how much control does either weapons system have in that regard? I guess the point is to engage incoming weapons as far away from the border as possible.
In the context of the original post, which focuses on Australia, the western part of the country i much less densely populated, so perhaps that's less of an issue--except where interception occurs close to a military facility. My only experience with any of this is being in an armored division in the Gulf War, and watching a Patriot take out a Scud one night--I think the only truly confirmed successful interception, from what I read afterwards--it exploded nearby, but nothing hit our unit.
I’ve argued before that our entire defense policy for my lifetime can be summed up as “Hold on until the Americans save us.” Our government has used the overwhelming power of the US’s military as an excuse to fund everything but our own defense for so long that I don’t think they know how to take threats seriously.
I once had an argument with a leftist who was trying to convince people that Australia didn’t need a navy, just a coast guard. I pointed out just how ridiculously vulnerable we are to blockade, especially since we offshored most of our petrochemical refineries.
You mentioned Perth, and cracking open an SSN pier side. A smart adversary could achieve the same result without a single human casualty. Just sneak one of those subs down to southern coast area, and sever the railway line and Nullarbor highway. Perth would be logistically isolated.
At least NASAMS and the MQ-25 are signaling the nascent return of state of the art assembly/manufacturing in Australia. Hopefully they'll use as much aluminum as possible. Australia is fully stove piped in Aluminum.
LOL, short version, in peacetime, a 1/3 of AUS jet fuel is sourced from China. What are the odds that the CCP burns that fuel instead of letting the yanks use it if the balloon goes up?
Give the CCP another five years and the outermost circle will cover the entirety of New Zealand. They have zero refineries since Marsden closed four years ago. I hope ANZ are prepared against an anaconda strategy.
Defense is a short term intervention for air attacks - whatever the vehicle - as the Persian Gulf and Red Sea demonstrate. The only deterrence and long-term intervention is offensive. In my armchair opinion. IMAO.
Can Australia stomach the idea of destroying the Three Gorges Dam? If so, it should develop the capability to do so. Then it should not-so-subtly announce its capability.
"Feel free to rain ballistic missiles down on us if you enjoy treading water."
That's true, the three Gorges dam is a strategic weakness but exactly for this reason (enormous human and industrial losses) an attack there would probably cause a nuclear answer and with half a dozen nukes Australia is dead
It would be bad, but Australia is spread out enough that while losing Sydney, Canberra, and Melbourne would be devastating, you could probably keep the country running.
- We need to have a day 1 plan to take out Mischief Reef
- Where does Singapore fit in our calculations?
- If we are talking about the downstream cascade of a Taiwan attack, it seems to me, that the Aussies need to be worried about little green men and drone attacks, along with a fuel cutoff. The CCP is not going to preemptively attack AUS. They are going to be playing all the angles to keep the US out and secondly to prevent the US from using Aussie territory, so coopting the political and PR sphere would seem the best non-kinetic option.
Yes, but here are some thoughts. (1) The articles are right on IF you believe the U.S. needs to pay for everything anti-China or be the weapons supplier of choice supporting inefficient or ineffective American defense manufacturers. (2) Given the world's quick movement away from the U.S. because of (a) the tariff war, redirection of trade and disengaging the American supply chain and dollar as the world's reserve currency, and (b) on-again/off-again “deal-making” from America’s current leadership in its transaction-based defense and economic partnerships relations, any movement to defend itself as the referenced articles suggests, Australia needs to build any capability should to be totally non-American linked, because we are an unreliable partner. It has plenty of money to do so because, like the comment about Australian fuel 30% supplied from China, China also has massive billion-dollar investments in iron ore and minerals contracts in northern Australia. They even funded and built the railroad to export it at Darwin. Australia is already well-integrated into the Chinese economic sphere of influence. The choice here is trade and insured money flow or war and destruction. (3) Military strategy would be different this time. No bombing Darwin, China needs the resource supply guaranteed so they need physical control. Looks more like precision strikes and then PLAN Marines invasion. (4) Given its size and barren expanse, any defense of Australia would look more like Napoleon’s or Hitler’s invasion of Russia. Retreat and attrition warfare, imposing high losses on an invading military. But while China could take complete control of Australia relatively easily, why? It’s not an existential threat. Otherwise CDR, appreciate the focus to fill out American what’s low risk map.
I don't see China taking complete control, the outback is large and remote. That said, control of the coasts and selective interior resources might be enough. But how many troops does that require? The Ozzies used to have a fierce reputation and I would have bet on them. Today? Don't know, they seem to be willing to be subjects.
So re mobile instead of fixed missile defense, it looks like the three Hobart class destroyers are the only SPY-equipped air defense assets in the Oz Navy, all based in Sydney on their east coast, and wpedia (I know) indicates their 48 ea Mark 41 cells antiair missiles are SM-2, so no ABM capability. The seven ANZAC frigates have 8 ea Mark 41 tactical-length cells, for ESSM Evolved Sea Sparrows, and their 3d radar is the upgraded phased array setup from the midlife upgrade, but still just antiair-centric. Five ANZACs of the seven in service are out near Perth on the west coast.
All of which to say, it’s a long drive from Sydney to protect the northern territories, and once on station, only cruise missiles (and PLAN subs) could be put at risk.
Were they to ask me (hah!) I would say either look to purchase older U.S.N. AEGIS DDGs upgraded to do ABM or maybe chat with the Japanese about buying a Kongo or two as they build more new Maya class DDGs.
Australia's population is very concentrated - 60% in 5 metro areas. Sea based defense would give them flexibility to shift coverage as needed to protect their assets and people.
The metro population is the double edge sword for the PRC. It is easier for them to attack and control the government of AUS than AUS herself. A large fraction of Asian ethnicities are concentrated in enclaves around those same metro areas. The exurb and rural population culturally more closely resembles that of Appalachia (outside of Atlanta, Charlotte, and Pittsburgh) or Texas (outside of DFW, Houston, and SA). The PRC efforts would be better spent trying to coopt and control the legitimate levers of AUS government instead of trying to control AUS herself. AUS area is about 12x that of TX (about the same as UKR) and about 16x of Appalachia. Urbanization in AUS has trended upward since WW2 even faster than in the US.
Plus Australia’s west coast is incredibly lengthy and has only two small population centers very distant from each other so sea borne defense is vital along their western coast.
The first thing we need to do is finish off Iran then worry about China.
Were it only that simple.
Both are a decade or two overdue.
FDR said Germany First and for good reason.
I won't open the Germany First can of worms, but...
As it turned out, the US was perfectly capable of dealing with the Japanese concurrently. It would be interesting to see how focusing effort on Japan would have changed the history.
Maybe in retrospect. It didn’t seem so at the time. Midway could have gone either way.
I still like the AEGIS ashore system as a manned air defense headquarters but it needs more self protection capabilities these days against drones. Secondary launchers with SM2 systems and the new AA Hydras would help. Also, it would be a good place for a laser based defense system.
As a missile magnet, it works, but there are too many threats to make a static installation of that caliber viable. Drone or SSGN strike IMHO.
One of the lessons from Ukraine, and really, the last almost century, is that if it is static it gets hit with whatever the artillery or air there is. Be it tube, dumb bombs, drones or ICBMs. If you are stationary you are at the mercy of the enemies capabilities. And with enemies who have good capability, that's not a good place.
From what I've read, the US has four or five destroyers off the coast of Israel providing air defense for that country from Iranian attacks. The same articles point out that the US sea-based systems are taking down the majority of the missiles intercepted, more than the Iron Dome system operated by Israel. Given that there are differences in geography and weapons, I wonder if this supports the argument for a sea-based defense system for Australia.
you need to consider that the strategies are different. I suspect that the US is shooting a lot more because they don't calculate impact locations, while the IDf is ranking threats before launch.
That does raise some interesting questions. If the US ships aren't worried about where the debris falls, I imagine the Israelis would be very unhappy. But how much control does either weapons system have in that regard? I guess the point is to engage incoming weapons as far away from the border as possible.
In the context of the original post, which focuses on Australia, the western part of the country i much less densely populated, so perhaps that's less of an issue--except where interception occurs close to a military facility. My only experience with any of this is being in an armored division in the Gulf War, and watching a Patriot take out a Scud one night--I think the only truly confirmed successful interception, from what I read afterwards--it exploded nearby, but nothing hit our unit.
I’ve argued before that our entire defense policy for my lifetime can be summed up as “Hold on until the Americans save us.” Our government has used the overwhelming power of the US’s military as an excuse to fund everything but our own defense for so long that I don’t think they know how to take threats seriously.
I once had an argument with a leftist who was trying to convince people that Australia didn’t need a navy, just a coast guard. I pointed out just how ridiculously vulnerable we are to blockade, especially since we offshored most of our petrochemical refineries.
You mentioned Perth, and cracking open an SSN pier side. A smart adversary could achieve the same result without a single human casualty. Just sneak one of those subs down to southern coast area, and sever the railway line and Nullarbor highway. Perth would be logistically isolated.
A strong navy is the best way to guard your coast.
At least NASAMS and the MQ-25 are signaling the nascent return of state of the art assembly/manufacturing in Australia. Hopefully they'll use as much aluminum as possible. Australia is fully stove piped in Aluminum.
Australia needs to invest to produce gallium, which is a bauxite impurity and critical mineral needed for advanced radars etc.
AUS also needs to reinvest in their petroleum extraction and refining capacity.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australia-oil-refineries-closures-fuel-imports/2b5gw0wt4
LOL, short version, in peacetime, a 1/3 of AUS jet fuel is sourced from China. What are the odds that the CCP burns that fuel instead of letting the yanks use it if the balloon goes up?
Give the CCP another five years and the outermost circle will cover the entirety of New Zealand. They have zero refineries since Marsden closed four years ago. I hope ANZ are prepared against an anaconda strategy.
Missing is the important info on the missile component. It makes a huge impact on effectiveness...
Defense is a short term intervention for air attacks - whatever the vehicle - as the Persian Gulf and Red Sea demonstrate. The only deterrence and long-term intervention is offensive. In my armchair opinion. IMAO.
How's the stockpile of critical metals and minerals holding up to produce the weapons on these increased production lines? Logistics.
Can Australia stomach the idea of destroying the Three Gorges Dam? If so, it should develop the capability to do so. Then it should not-so-subtly announce its capability.
"Feel free to rain ballistic missiles down on us if you enjoy treading water."
That's true, the three Gorges dam is a strategic weakness but exactly for this reason (enormous human and industrial losses) an attack there would probably cause a nuclear answer and with half a dozen nukes Australia is dead
It would be bad, but Australia is spread out enough that while losing Sydney, Canberra, and Melbourne would be devastating, you could probably keep the country running.
Random thoughts?
- We need to have a day 1 plan to take out Mischief Reef
- Where does Singapore fit in our calculations?
- If we are talking about the downstream cascade of a Taiwan attack, it seems to me, that the Aussies need to be worried about little green men and drone attacks, along with a fuel cutoff. The CCP is not going to preemptively attack AUS. They are going to be playing all the angles to keep the US out and secondly to prevent the US from using Aussie territory, so coopting the political and PR sphere would seem the best non-kinetic option.
Yes, but here are some thoughts. (1) The articles are right on IF you believe the U.S. needs to pay for everything anti-China or be the weapons supplier of choice supporting inefficient or ineffective American defense manufacturers. (2) Given the world's quick movement away from the U.S. because of (a) the tariff war, redirection of trade and disengaging the American supply chain and dollar as the world's reserve currency, and (b) on-again/off-again “deal-making” from America’s current leadership in its transaction-based defense and economic partnerships relations, any movement to defend itself as the referenced articles suggests, Australia needs to build any capability should to be totally non-American linked, because we are an unreliable partner. It has plenty of money to do so because, like the comment about Australian fuel 30% supplied from China, China also has massive billion-dollar investments in iron ore and minerals contracts in northern Australia. They even funded and built the railroad to export it at Darwin. Australia is already well-integrated into the Chinese economic sphere of influence. The choice here is trade and insured money flow or war and destruction. (3) Military strategy would be different this time. No bombing Darwin, China needs the resource supply guaranteed so they need physical control. Looks more like precision strikes and then PLAN Marines invasion. (4) Given its size and barren expanse, any defense of Australia would look more like Napoleon’s or Hitler’s invasion of Russia. Retreat and attrition warfare, imposing high losses on an invading military. But while China could take complete control of Australia relatively easily, why? It’s not an existential threat. Otherwise CDR, appreciate the focus to fill out American what’s low risk map.
I don't see China taking complete control, the outback is large and remote. That said, control of the coasts and selective interior resources might be enough. But how many troops does that require? The Ozzies used to have a fierce reputation and I would have bet on them. Today? Don't know, they seem to be willing to be subjects.
Well, the Aussies don't HAVE to buy US made defenses. They can build their own!
Oh, wait.
How about from someone else?
So re mobile instead of fixed missile defense, it looks like the three Hobart class destroyers are the only SPY-equipped air defense assets in the Oz Navy, all based in Sydney on their east coast, and wpedia (I know) indicates their 48 ea Mark 41 cells antiair missiles are SM-2, so no ABM capability. The seven ANZAC frigates have 8 ea Mark 41 tactical-length cells, for ESSM Evolved Sea Sparrows, and their 3d radar is the upgraded phased array setup from the midlife upgrade, but still just antiair-centric. Five ANZACs of the seven in service are out near Perth on the west coast.
All of which to say, it’s a long drive from Sydney to protect the northern territories, and once on station, only cruise missiles (and PLAN subs) could be put at risk.
Were they to ask me (hah!) I would say either look to purchase older U.S.N. AEGIS DDGs upgraded to do ABM or maybe chat with the Japanese about buying a Kongo or two as they build more new Maya class DDGs.
It is certainly unobjectionable for the US to encourage friendly nations to "keep your guard up."
This article was taken from behind a paywall and is free to read. "Navy Carrier’s Problems Are Tied to Attacks on U.S. Base Early in War."
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/14/us/politics/uss-abraham-lincoln-trump-supplies-diego-garcia.html?unlocked_article_code=1.6lA.fCIl._XIVdwnY-vxE&smid=url-share