"Russia sends warships to 'shirtfront' Australia" - National Post

[dimsum]

Related to my post in the "Russia in the 21st Century" thread, this article on The National Post:

The Australians are a more mature country than Canada when it comes to national defence. As an isolated bastion of democracy located far from its European and North American allies, it has to be. Australia’s military isn’t enormous, but it is modern and powerful. Canada could learn from their example. With our larger population and economy, there’s no reason we can’t field at least as capable a force.

But right now, we don’t, and Canada’s navy is particularly badly off, with our frigates undergoing upgrades now, our submarines barely reaching an operational state and our elderly supply ships and destroyers heading off into retirement without replacements. If Mr. Putin decided to send us a message by putting a few warships off the coast of Vancouver Island or Halifax, it’s far from clear we’d be able to muster a force as capable of what the Australians already have.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/12/matt-gurney-russia-sends-warships-to-shirtfront-australia/

I broadly agree with everything up until the last paragraph.  HMA Ships Stuart and Parramatta are ANZAC-class frigates, which are roughly equivalent to our CPFs.  They've sent two of them as well as an AP-3C, which is the same as if we sent 2 CPFs and an Aurora to, say, northern coastal BC or off the eastern coast of NL.  Surely we can do that.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

You assume we actually have two frigates that are deployable on each coast and available for immediate duties. 

 

[Monsoon]

You assume we actually have two frigates that are deployable on each coast and available for immediate duties.

You assume that we don't? Weird.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You assume we actually have two frigates that are deployable on each coast and available for immediate duties.

Actually, we do - and more. Moreover, before getting near our shores, they would have had a nice little meeting with US warships somewhere mid-ocean. We tend to share the coasts' defence duties as North America is sort of an island we share. We're good neighbours like that.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

IIRC  the maritime approaches (to some extent) were included in the NORAD "stuff" in recent years.

http://www.norad.mil/AboutNORAD.aspx  2nd para.

The renewal of the NORAD Agreement in May 2006 added a maritime warning mission, which entails a shared awareness and understanding of the activities conducted in U.S. and Canadian maritime approaches, maritime areas and internal waterways.

 

[dimsum]

Without getting the USN involved (pretty much an academic situation, since they'd be involved under NORAD as EITS has already mentioned), the RCN and RAN aren't that far apart in terms of maritime fighting capability - 12 ANZAC and Adelaide-class ships to our 15 (12 if you discount the Tribals right off the bat).  The rest, and most of their newer stuff, are transports/amphibs/helicopter carriers which would need those 12 ships to defend them.

Whatever our manning issues are in the RCN, I'd also suspect the RAN would have as well given the oil/mining sector in Queensland and Western Australia.  It would not surprise me if sending Stuart and Parramatta was the best the RAN could scrounge at short notice; perhaps they were already deployed on EX or something. 

 

[Monsoon]

Whatever our manning issues are in the RCN, I'd also suspect the RAN would have as well given the oil/mining sector in Queensland and Western Australia.  It would not surprise me if sending Stuart and Parramatta was the best the RAN could scrounge at short notice; perhaps they were already deployed on EX or something.

I'd be surprised if the port visit was arranged for "shirtfronting" purposes alone. But it's true: for a country two-thirds our size but otherwise much the same, Australia spends more in dollars terms on defence than we do. But the big difference is that, unlike Canada, Australia didn't incur a retarded national debt for no reason during the 1960s and 70s. So effectively they now get to work with all the money we spend on debt service.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I have no doubt that having a much smaller national debt makes more funds available to Australia, but I doubt that is the main reason for their greater military stance than Canada.

Geopolitics, as ever, is the more likely culprit:

First, Australia does not live under the inner umbrella of US defences and therefore does not gain any defence advantage form this , as we do in Canada.

Second, unlike us, they have in their past been invaded or under a threat of actual invasion of their territory (Japan, WWII), while we have been immune to this and still are.

Third, they live in a more dangerous area of the world with many unstable regimes in their immediate area of influence (where they are the Big First World country) and this requires a capability to intervene directly some times - anybody remembers East-Timor?

Fourth, they, unlike us, are in the area of expansion of the influence of both China and India, with its attendant destabilizing effect.

Finally, their area of influence is a region that has a greater incidence of natural disasters than our nick of the woods. These disaster often happen in close neighbouring countries that are second or third world countries, and they naturally look up to Australia for humanitarian assistance.