Indian Ocean Defense and Security Conference Panel 2: Cooperation and Security in the Indo-Pacific

Andrew Greene (Moderator)

Today, we're ending with AUKUS meeting the quad, particularly our very important quad partner, Japan. I'd like to keep a focus on the Indo-Pacific in this final session. We'll begin, closest to me, with Admiral Franchetti, and your reflections since coming to Perth, on the importance of the Indian Ocean to the United States and to the counterparts that you have here with you today.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti

Well, thank you. Again, it's really an honor to be here. I think one of the great opportunities for conferences like this is to really educate and inform all of us about the different perspectives that we share. When I reflect on the value and the importance of this region, especially in the maritime domain, to the United States, I'm always reminded that we've always been a Pacific nation. Since after our independence, we sent our trading ships over here, into this region, and we've always been focused on this region. It really is our priority focus area, as put out in our National Defense Strategy. I think when you look at and you've heard about all the resources--all of the challenges that we face in the region--it's clear that no one nation can face all those challenges alone. So as we look to the Indo-Pacific, and we look to our partners that are working with us every single day to protect that rules-based international order and get really all the other challenges that we see from illegal unregulated fishing, it's very clear that together we can conquer a lot of those challenges, and it couldn't be a more important region for us to be present in every day.

Greene

Admiral Hammond, half the world's population lives in the Indo-Pacific, but to this part of the Indo-Pacific, specifically, what is the importance of the Indian Ocean?

Chief of the Royal Australian Navy Vice Adm. Mark Hammond

Firstly, it's as I said this morning, it's foundational to the security of our island state. One third of the nation's coastline for an island and the majority of the state's coastline faces the Indian Ocean and that which doesn't faces our northern neighbors and the vast southern ocean. Around the rim of the Indian Ocean, you have 35% of world's population, 38 coastal states and the flow of goods and trade across the Indian Ocean fuels our economic well being. So, the Indian Ocean just as the Pacific on the other side of our nation is absolutely foundational to our economic wellbeing and that which feeds our economic wellbeing underpins our national security potential.

Greene

Admiral Saito, welcome to Australia I understand this is one of your first full engagements. So we've been particularly pleased to have you. We’ll get your reflections on this topic too of the Indian Ocean, but more broadly, the Indo-Pacific and the importance that Japan plays in that region.

Chief of Staff of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) Adm. Akira Saito

Thank you very much. I'm Admiral Saito Chief of Staff Japan Maritime Self Defense Force, being appointed chief of staff on Friday.

I'm newborn, only five days and 17 hours old. Navies, especially some members of AUKUS and the QUAD, must generate relationships in the Indo Pacific are the ones in cooperation interoperability, logistic, and the technology will enable a logical response to threats against free and open oceans. Especially I talked about as for logistic cooperation, one of JMSDF recent endeavors improves rainforests in Japan's repair and maintenance capacity for U.S. Navy, and the Royal Navy. So, as an example, the contraction of [inaudible] engine digital depot is undergoing in Japan, in Syria, maintenance of this engine for US, UK, Australia, Canada and the Republic of Korea, number of vessels will be better in the coming years. So JMSDF, we've continued to make every helpful to strengthen deterrence in the Indo-Pacific region.

Greene

Finally, to you, Admiral Key.

Royal Navy Adm. Sir Ben Key, First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff

I think the fact that we are a European nation has led to some to conclude that our interests are really only in the Euro-Atlantic region. And that that is where some commentators believe we should double down. And the new government should be very clear that we will fulfill our obligations to NATO first and foremost. But our economic interests are not geographically constrained in this way. As the colleagues have all said, a global economy demands global commitment and engagement from those who wish to contribute to that economy and benefit from it. It would be bizarre, and I think wrong. If we were to assume that we left it to others to secure the maritime commons, for the flow of trade and economic benefit to others, whilst extracting for our own use some of the upsides. And so for, for us, noting all the statistics that we've heard today about the amount of value that flows across the Indian Ocean, and the way it connects, and has done for centuries, if not millennia, Europe and Asia, Indian Ocean is that, that conduit through which we must all come. That is why it matters to us because we have growing economic interests as a nation in the Indo-Pacific region. And actually, it is the Indo-Pacific region that is driving the economic growth of the global community at the moment. So that's why it matters to us. And that's why as Marina, I feel very comfortable with deploying the Royal Navy into this region, to engage with our Allies and partners and play albeit a small part in securing those freedoms that matter so much upon the high seas.

Greene

To pick up on the theme that you've raised about economic security, we're seeing that threatened as we speak every day, particularly around the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, to all of the panel, is this a fight that can be won quickly, easily? How do we see this challenge which has emerged in that part of the world that, that links into the Indian Ocean being resolved.

Key

So, I can make a stance on that others will then have a chance to think of a more intelligent answer. But I think what we're seeing both in the Southern Red Sea, in the Black Sea, and elsewhere, contested waters, is actually some good old fashioned doctrinal concepts about sea control, sea denial, and, and actually we’re digging through our doctrine books. Because for a long time, we have assumed that these things are available to us at no cost. And what we're also seeing, both from what the Ukrainians are doing in country, Russia is illegal invasion of their sovereign land and seeking to control the Black Sea. And from in the Southern Red Sea, where effectively an organization, the Houthis, with no maritime heritage whatsoever is on different ways of trying to disrupt sea control that we wish, or to apply, sea denial. And consequently, the way that we learn quickly to adapt our tactics and techniques, the way that we understand the risks that that represents to mariners. And therefore also, the obligation is for us to protect and provide confidence and assurance is causing us to realize what contested actually means. Does this define everything that's going to go through into the future? No, not at all. These are quite specific cases. We have to be careful, therefore, that we're learning the right lessons. And we don't assume that this is the future of warfare going ahead. But as has been absolutely proved in both scenarios, when the pressure comes on, it can become kinetic. And kinetic means dangerous. And we have to be prepared to respond quickly, robustly and aggressively, as we have been doing in the Southern Red Sea, or as Ukrainians, we've been helping support them in the Black Sea. So fascinating that to an extent, it's, it's shaken out some of the complacency that can sometimes exist in the minds of broader communities, that all of this is pretty good. And the only time it gets disrupted is when a container ship gets stuck in the Suez Canal. This is a much more significant version of that.

Greene

You've touched, we've heard there about some of the asymmetric threats that we're seeing in naval warfare. Adm. Franchetti, we would get your reflections on both the Black Sea, the Red Sea and the various troubled spots that are currently presenting themselves.

Franchetti

I mean, I think as Admiral Ben just said, this is a critically important time for all of our navies, to really understand that the freedom of the seas that we've enjoyed for so many years, that has really contributed significantly to global prosperity is under threat. And we can't take it for granted. As we prepare our navies, we learn to use the capabilities we have today. We think about the capabilities we're going to need to have in the future, to be able to work together to ensure that sea control is something that is within our grasp, to ensure that we can deny the seas to those that we don't want to use them, and that we are not caught off guard by those tactics, techniques, and procedures that you've mentioned, that we are able to respond. And I would say that the rules based international order is under threat. And as you know, we speak with some of our commercial shipping industry colleagues, I think for them, it is also a wake-up call, that they can integrate better with us, and the navies around the world to make sure that we can have that free flow of commerce wherever it needs to go. I think the other piece that is really important, if you look at the Ukraine example, or if you look, especially in the Red Sea through Operation Prosperity Guardian is the strength of Allies and partners joining together in a crisis. And so all the exercises we do--all this work we do together to build interoperability--it's not just to build interoperability, but it's to be able to have a purpose to use that when we need to. And you see that right now with all the navies working together, whether it's sharing information, whether it's being able to defeat adversary capabilities, whether it's being able to iterate inside the to-do loop of an adversary who's constantly changing their tactics, techniques, and procedures. These are things that we're learning now, in the Red Sea, in this conflict in the horrific, Russia's horrific invasion of Ukraine that have significance in every theater in the world.

Greene

Admiral Hammond, Australia hasn't deployed a warship, but we do have personnel in the Middle East. Has it been a struggle to explain to people in this country who have heard for years that we need to focus more on our region, to also continue to have that presence in the Middle East.

Vice Admiral Mark Hammond AO RAN (AUS)

Yes, thank you, Andrew, not internally within defense. For a bit of context, we're in it with three destroyers, seven frigates, six submarines. My learned colleague on my right, 44 destroyers, 20 plus frigates, 24 submarines. And we all know the strength of the Royal Navy and the United States Navy. Our Indian colleague is not here to [inaudible] unfortunately couldn't join us. Also, due to the role they have 66 warships under construction. What the events in the Red Sea have reminded us of, frankly, beyond the disruptions of global trade is the strengths we derive from the partnerships that we have, we don't play an underage football game here and we'll go running off to the crisis together and ignoring the responsibilities for the neighborhood. We actually communicate, we collaborate, and we made sure that collectively we are across the field everywhere we need to cover and with a very, very small navy and in some cases, one that has to reinforce our border protection responsibilities on occasion, we are best placed to provide high-quality personnel in headquarters functions which we have been doing for many, many years in the Red Sea. So internally within the department, the logic of small but effective in an environment where our boss also got clear direction to uplift the lethality, I cannot attach new missile systems to ships at sea they need to be in port. And I'm going to support a recruiting challenge here in Australia, which is best done by visiting Australians and Australian ports for their warships for internally No. Externally, I made the comment this morning that I would like to see maritime literacy lifted in the great nation of Australia. We have multiple Chiefs of the Australian Navy who talked about sea blindness. Our land is not good by sea, but good by beach. And we are quick to turn our back upon the waters and gaze at the vast interior of our land. There is more work to be done. And that's why I'm hoping the community of practitioners here in this room can help us. Let's have honest, objective, sensible, reasonable conversations and understand the policy environment of the day, we have clear direction to focus on the immediate region that the national defense strategy was very clear about that defense strategic review has been very clear about that Australian government's been very clear about that. And we have done so with the complete support of our Allies and partners.

Greene

I want to move on to interoperability and interchangeability between all of your navies but for clarification, do we have some more personnel hitting, some more highly-qualified personnel as you put, heading to the Middle East?

Hammond

Not as we speak, Andrew, there's they're always contributions of Australian Defense Force personnel, to operations, activities, and exercises around the globe. We are, as a department, always solicited for nominations to headquarters everywhere from United Nations in New York. The operations that they endorse and sanction through to coalition maritime force operations in the Middle East, and other activities, even RIMPAC, we bid for leadership positions, we don't necessarily fill all those positions and ultimately something like the operations you're talking about that would be a consideration for government. And if such a decision was made, then there would be a big announcement. For clarity, no, not as we see.

Greene

Interoperability and interchangeability, there's been a lot of talk today of unity. Unity as the strength of purpose to our Japanese naval guest. What has Japan been able to do in terms of improving interoperability with not only QUAD partners but the AUKUS more broadly?

Saito

I’ll talk a little bit about my experience as Commander in Chief of the Self Defense Fleet, which was my previous position. So we have been conducting many exercises with our allied partners to improve our interoperability. For our naval forces to deploy to far areas globally. It is very important for us to work together so that we're always efficient in our deployments. We have a number of exercises that we conduct. And through those exercises, we are always looking for ways to improve our interoperability. I can give you some examples such as Malabar and also RIMPAC, which was recently conducted, and it really gives us opportunities for much improvement. So the U.S. Navy has become a hub of these exercises, and we conduct very high-tactical exercises throughout our deployments. And the four navies here, we are always sharing our plans for deployment, and we always look for opportunities to improve our interoperability

Greene

To our British guest.

Key

So I think we need to recognize that in the kind of the way that we see the Allies, the partnerships, evolving. Interchangeability really is the head mark that we should be working towards. To be interoperable means that we have the confidence but we each play our own parts, interchangeable means that we can play each other's part. And we're exploring that, I think, with quite a lot of courage, both in terms of what we wanted to achieve, but also some of the policy barriers that are being removed from the traditional way of doing business kind of lengthen to a century in order to open up those. And I would give an example in 2021, when in the western Pacific, our four navies gathered together for a major exercise involving carriers from three of our countries. I'm sure Mark, Australia will get correct capability back in due course.

Sorry. I've got to get him back from earlier comments. But actually, what was really significant about that was onboard the British carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth was a U.S. Marine Corps squadron. And it wasn't just visiting for a couple of days, it was on board for seven and a half months, and the work and effort that went into achieving that. So that we could embark U.S. wetlands onto a UK aircraft carrier, so that the pilots from the two nations could freely share--at times highly classified information concerning the way that we operate the F-35B--and that we had complete confidence that it didn't matter who was airborne, doing what, the instruction sets that could be used were exactly the same and understood by all and by the escorts that were in the group. To achieve that and then cement it not as a one off, but this is now the new norm, and we're building on. Took courage, took a huge amount of work from policymakers and others to support but actually unlocked that sense of what maritime forces need to be able to do in the 21st century. And I look forward with great excitement next year with the next UK carrier deployment into the region, to being able to build on that. And to demonstrate, therefore, that we are increasingly comfortable doing our business in each other's minds. And not just that photograph that shows that, as Admiral Franchetti described earlier, we can steam in formation. It’s that confidence and trust that I think underpins interchangeability, but that is going to be desperately important in putting across the kind of deterrence messages that we that matter to us.

Greene

Admiral Hammond, you've noted that you're the smallest navy represented here. But what has been the Australian experience of trying to generate interoperability?

Hammond

And for those who are wondering, that’s I’m the only three star up here. The interchangeability in my mind, I agree with Ben’s point that it's different to interoperable it is the ability to play each other's part or to be in the same act at the same time in the same pressure hole as a submariner getting the job done. The key enabler for interchangeability for us and I'd say that the greatest interchangeability we've got in Royal Australian Navy is probably firstly with the U.S. submarine force, where our COs graduate from the U.S. submarine commanding officer’s course. We operate a common combat system. We deploy the common torpedo, as one of the advantages of the of the AUKUS program is we will end up with three navies operating similar submarines with common baseline weapon system, combat system capability. So that enables us to bring U.S. sonar operators on board, to on board our submarines. For our junior officers to go and deploy on fast-attack submarines in the South China Sea. And we've been doing that long before because this is a decades old journey of interchangeability. In the surface fleet with the AEGIS combat system has enabled a similar degree of connective tissue. So, for industry out there, commonality of key systems, like combat systems is absolutely a capability and an answer for us. It has a disproportionate impact on our ability to fight and win together. As we look to expand our interoperability and interchangeability with partners, that’s what we’re looking at with Japan, with India, with South Korea, with Indonesia. We’re looking to enable to the greatest degree of interoperability and exquisite cases wherever we can, that interchangeability. And what do we gain from that? We gain trust. Ben made the point that a trusted neighbor is a good neighbor. A trusted partner is a good partner. And back to the Red Sea. I don't need to be in the Red Sea to learn the lessons of maritime warfare in the Red Sea. There's positive flow of information here, positive connectivity into a Maritime Warfare Center, we've got all the modeling, all the hard data, all the information, we need to understand whether or not our systems and weapons are up to scratch. So the U.S. fires one of their missiles from this in the in the Red Sea. That's pertinent to us because we use the same missile systems. And so we derive all of these intangible benefits from that degree of interchangeability quite often with that being in the room on the other side of the plane.

Greene

But would we learn more if we were in the Red Sea.

Hammond

Depends on what would we not be learning if we weren't in the South China Sea? It's, we have an obligation or responsibility to provide a reassuring presence in a number of different locations. Sure, it's great to have a flag on a ship four and a half thousand miles away. Do I want to push a 25-year-old frigate all the way over there, and back again? It's a month each way. And we only have exquisite choices to make. I've got destroys to fit with brand new missiles. But the test firings to complete the presence missions in the South China Sea with the border protection duties. One or two destroyers out of out of a force of 44? That's an easy decision to make. One or two destroyers out of a force of three? Very different proposition. So the key takeaway here is, could we be in the South China Sea from a capability perspective? Absolutely. Should we? Decision for government. Do we need a bigger navy? That's what the surface fleet combatant review said? That's what we’re getting after.

Greene

Adm. Franchetti?

Franchetti

I would just like to add a few things to build on what my colleagues have already said. First, I think it is important to recognize that every navy can make a contribution. There are global challenges that no matter the size of the navy, or the capabilities of the navy, it's a maritime link in the chain. Everyone is a link in that. As we build towards high-end interoperability with some partners, other partners, we build HADR capabilities. It's important to recognize that there are significant contributions that every navy all around the globe has an opportunity to make. I shouldn't lose it always on interchangeability interoperability that's very important. And we should all work towards that, while recognizing that some other navies will make this contribution which is complementary to the capabilities that we already have. I think the other one is just the importance of the exercises that we do. We plan hard, all of us, to be able to achieve the objectives of each nation when they plan our exercises. When we do Rim of the Pacific, which is underway right now with 29 nations, seven of them are from Europe, and many, many ships, many, many aircrafts and even equally important are the number of people that are participating on the planning staffs. We fight in a warfighting ecosystem. That's very important that we have great platforms, great capabilities, but our people need to know how to plan, how to execute missions, and by having members on the staff, whether it's in the Middle East, or whether it's in RIMPAC, all of those officers are learning. All of those enlisted warriors are also learning. And the more that we can grow those capabilities, both at sea and in our in headquarters, in our maritime operations centers, the more options we'll be able to provide for our nation's decision makers going forward. I think that's a really important part of interchangeability -- is the ability of those staffs to synchronize. We have leaders--each nation here--leads many parts of the combined maritime force or they lead RIMPAC. And having those experiences will help us be much better in the future.

 

Greene

Adm. Saito raised Exercise Malabar, I’d be curious to learn from you, Admiral Hammond, what were we learning from Exercise Malabar, and, you know, it does involve very different size navies.

Hammond

Thank you, Andrew, I think this has become very quickly one of our most important exercises, because of those shared interests. So you stretch from the Indian Ocean, all the way through the north of Japan. Each of our nations have an important role to play. And it's like that the fable I was quoting this morning in my speech that when we stand apart, we're easy to be broken or defeated. But when we stand together, it's a significant maritime force. Against 66 warships under construction, in the Indian Navy, 44 destroyers, 22, frigates, 24 submarines over here. The small contribution the Royal Australian Navy makes at the moment which will only grow in the future, and the United States Seventh Fleet, one of the most storied warfighting navies in the world. When you combine all of those forces, that's a powerful deterrent. There aren't many people who would want to take that that force on, so we derive a significant national deterrence advantage from us strengthening those relationships and the interoperability at sea. We also learn about new ways of doing business. Each of our navies have had particular strengths. And we come at solving problems, sometimes from different angles. And when you put your people on somebody else's ships or submarines or aircraft or you invent them in other teams, they come back with new ideas, new ways of doing things. So that enables you to accelerate learning opportunities and to integrate them into your organization, to leverage initiatives and original thoughts that otherwise you wouldn't have access to. And then gradually, over time, optimize your own capabilities. The people would have people aspects are really, really important as well. When you look at a university environment here in Australia. We have a lot of Japanese expats. We have a lot of Indian expats. we're increasingly seeing a lot of American expats and arguably the British expect the British expat community is also one of the largest. So over time you're building connective tissue. When an Indian ship comes into Sydney Harbor, have you seen the [inaudible] that turns out for ship visits. I wish our ships got that much longer port visit in Australia. It's incredible. And it's an incredible reminder of the people-to-people links that navies facilitate. So I could go on and on. I think Malabar is an important platform. The ability to host the Sydney Harbor last year was a highlight of my career. And Akira was there with us representing the Japanese Navy in Sydney. So he'll probably have a view to that that I think is foundational for our future national security.

  Greene

We are approaching the end stage of this panel and the day's proceedings. A couple of you have touched on workforce. Workforce is going to be a huge challenge for each of the countries represented here. To Admiral Saito, some very ambitious targets in your country for building up defense industry. How is Japan going to find the manpower?

Saito

It is already a big challenge for us to secure the workforce that is necessary. With the decreasing population and lack of the workforce, it will be necessary for us to design and procure systems that will require less people or optimization. So, that is one of the reasons why I was very much looking forward to taking part in the IODS, in the exhibition here. But I will be in the exhibition hall, please stop me if you have any assets that will help us use less manning for the JMSDF.

Greene

To the first sea lord, organization and that sort of thing. Is that something that the UK is looking at?

Key

Yeah, absolutely. And actually, if we weren't looking to use modern technology, I think the young men and women that were inviting to join the Navy will quickly become disinterested in it, because we are in a navies, whatever their size are, by their very nature technical organizations. And so the people that join, to serve and wear our uniforms, are expecting to operate in something that is modern, forward facing, and cutting edge. And so to provide stimulating careers more than we need, we need to be in that space. And clearly, there is a lot and no doubt, as Admiral Saito says, we could wander around the exhibition hall here, and a lot of people are going to sell us a lot of autonomous stuff, or at least try to. And tell us that this is the future of maritime warfare. I'm not completely persuaded of that. I think autonomy has a huge role to play. And why would you endanger life if you don't need to. But fundamentally, fighting, whether at sea or on land is something that is resolved in the minds of people. And that does require, if it comes to that, a form of risk and violence. And not all things can be done autonomously. And so what we're looking to find is the balance, both in terms of onboard and reducing numbers in the crew, but also maximizing the concept of mass in order to achieve the effects that we want to achieve. And there is a sweet spot. I think it's a dynamic thing. You'll never know when you're completely in it. We also need to be honest, that not everything can reduce crews all the way down. Because whilst you might, and the U.S. have experimented with this, I know I'm sure the rest of us have got programs. If you take a ship's crew all the way down to 15, 16, 17, because it gives you that perfect moment, when things that start to go wrong, you suddenly run out for people, and 17 people from a ship can't really contribute much to humanity, humanitarian disaster relief activity is very difficult that our ships company of 17 to create a boarding team that can go on board and intercept illegal fishing or deal with counter narcotics. And so there's a number of activities that do require human beings to be involved. And the question for us as we think about these future fleets, is what is that balance that allows us to achieve the things we need to achieve in the most effective manner, embracing technology, but also recognizing that there will be workforce involvement. That providing that is stimulating and interesting, then I'm confident that we can persuade people to join, and more importantly, retain them as they build their skills.

Greene

And to you now, Adm. Franchetti.

Franchetti

I just want to build on that a little bit about that uncrewed or autonomous. I think this does offer a lot of good opportunity for further cooperation between our navies, because every navy is looking at the same challenges in terms of workforce, in terms of increasing responsibilities, increasing global areas of operation. And I think this is a place where the technology is new enough to look at what are the problems we're trying to solve with the technology. We can throw that out into industry, where there's amazing creativity, a lot of innovative spirit, and then we can start getting some of these best of breed solutions. And we can work together then to work through the tactics, techniques, procedures, how are we going to work together with them, I'd like to say that we can use some of these technologies to do things that are dangerous, dull, and dirty. And then we can free up our Sailors to doing things that they really want to do. We just created a robotics rating earlier this year. And that has generated a lot of excitement in the people that want to join our team, because just like Ben said, people want to be part of winning teams, but also teams with the best technology that they can use and get that into their hands. We're very focused on the workforce, we're very focused on how do we integrate unmanned, uncrewed, autonomous technology. And again, let that unleash the power of our Sailors every single day.

Greene

And Admiral Hammond, we begun this journey this year with the surface fleet review talking about optimally crewed vessels. What's briefly the experience so far?

Hammond

I think the crewed surface vessel program in the hands of the United States Navy, which we are tracking quite closely. I will not eat Lisa’s lunch on that issue. We can’t make a comment on that program. I'll leave that to her. What I would say is one of my colleagues here, Japan, has done an exceptional job of leveraging emerging technology to reduce the crew size of their frigates. And when you look at all four candidates that are under consideration and C 3000 for the general purpose frigate program, we're looking at a crew base crews, 90 to 100. Then you throw the helicopter team on board, you're up to about 120. Anzac crew about 180. Go put it in the Red Sea, 200, 220. You know we can replace the Anzac crews, Anzac ships with 11 general purpose frigates without increasing the current liability for the Royal Australian Navy. That is the promise of technology. There are different ways of doing business different ways of driving ships, reducing the crew footprint in which we are learning more about through the seats, right 3000 process. And concurrently, we've had autonomous warrior under underway now for many, many years, we are filling in water uncrewed capabilities at an ever-increasing rate. And some of those uncrewed surface vessels, for example, are already in the field in maritime border protection, GDs at the moment, for example. And that in itself will hopefully one day I saw somebody in the audience earlier today, hopefully come out of maritime border command can reduce the demand signal for on-water crewed surface vessels as we improve the value of autonomy. So it is a key part of the future. It's a key capability we are getting after at speed now. And it is going to free up our people for other less dangerous, less dull and more important missions. And the last point on that, I would say mine warfare is one of those where we're particularly focused. Do I want to put a clearance diver with a small shape charge on the seabed to deal with a problem? Not particularly, there are other ways of doing these things without putting our people in harm's way. And that's what we're all about up here.

Greene

I did say we'd steer away from AUKUS because that has been covered at length today. But while we do have the First Sea Lord and the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, can you give the audience an idea of what Australia is getting from the rather large financial contributions Australia is making to both your industrial bases? And why is that important?

Franchetti

I think it's really important, because all the things we were talking about all day is really the security of this region today and far into the future. And the promise of AUKUS and really all of our relationships is if we're able to bring together the capabilities, the industrial bases, the innovative bases, really, of our nations, so we can move together faster, further than we really could alone. So as many of those speakers here today said, this is a once-in-a-generation strategic investment that is going to pay off in terms of security and stability, or maybe deterrence perspective and from the ability to respond in a crisis or win decisively in any type of engagement.

Greene

And Adm. Key?

Key

I would just look at the long-term investments that Australia is making. The Commonwealth is making in the United Kingdom is going to return to the Commonwealth of Australia’s benefit through the development of the transition that the Australian Navy is making in its submarine force and moving from conventional to nuclear propulsion. And that needs to be catalyzed from somewhere and the joint force right it was either to do it from a standing start all on its own or to leverage what the United States and the United Kingdom is already doing in order to help Australia then achieve its own capabilities. And, and as Admiral Mark observed earlier today, not the reactor itself was not meant to be built here in Australia. So it's not unreasonable to expect and ask Australia to make some of the upfront investment that allows the United Kingdom to then build the reactor house, similar going on in the U.S. But this returns back. And then think of the opportunity the other way that for us in the United Kingdom, if they've got a nuclear submarine operating capability here in Australia, that that is a benefit to us in the long run as well. I know, Australians, they're warm, welcoming, decent, but not always entirely generous people, I'm sure, there will be a point in the future, when we will be asked to put our hand into our pocket. But that'll be for our benefit as well. I'm kind of comfortable with what's going through, there's a lot of work going on across the three capitals, to look at the balance of the AUKUS payments to make sure that they're appropriate, equitable, and all of it is focused on long-term benefit for all three nations that are involved in the pillar one activities.

Greene

Did you want to add to that?

Hammond

I wondered where he was going with that comment from [inaudible]. You get the bill later. But just a case in point, the Rolls Royce production line for naval nuclear reactors, is designed to meet the production requirements for the Royal Navy submarine force, both their fast attack and strategic deterrent capability, if you want to add a bunch of Australian submarines, they need another production line, it's only appropriate that we contribute funds to get that production line up and running as quickly as possible, because that's one of the critical lead, long-lead items. So that's the kind of contribution in the case of the United States their industrial landscape is a result of 70 years of sovereign investment. That in itself has a price. They are our contribution is a fraction, a tiny fraction of what it has cost the United States taxpayers over 70 years to establish. So call it an entry fee, call it a reasonable contribution, call it a strategic investment, in the grand context of what we're actually going to receive at the end of this program, and what we've already received the intent in terms of intellectual property, without a fee, I think it's reasonable contribution. It’s one of those contributions to the national investment in our insurance plan, at a time where the risks from an insurance perspective are increasing. So from a premium perspective, it kinda makes sense to me, but I'm no economist.

Greene

And Adm. Franchetti, just briefly, is it going to get us to the desired number of Virginia-class boats off the production line?

Franchetti

Yes, this has been a very big focus for me personally. And for our Secretary, we're making significant investments. On the United States side, we've already talked about the workforce, but it's also investing in the supply chain, the industrial base, plant equipment, all of the things that we need to do to be able to accelerate the productions of the Virginia's and I'm confident working together with industry, and working together with all of our different workflow production resources, such as community colleges, really investing in STEM earlier on to grow the workforce that we need in the future--that all of these investments that we're making are really going to pay off and they are going to accelerate the delivery of our Virginia-class submarines. And I look forward to that and continuing to work for and meet all of our AUKUS objectives that we've agreed to.

Greene

And given the work, Admiral Hammond, I think first thing in the morning, I did promise he would get the last word today to wrap out the session. I hand the floor to you, Chief, for something you want to say.

Hammond

Thanks. Hey, just a couple of things I'd like to say. Firstly, thank you to my colleagues for coming all this way. Lisa from the, in the geographically speaking the furthest point away from Washington D.C. And it's her first visit to Perth. I hope it was worth the trip so far. Ben, it's only three weeks ago we were together in London. And we'll see what Portsmouth great to see again. Thanks for coming again. And it was Ben's 30th wedding anniversary yesterday. That shows you how committed he is to the program. And Akira, we were together last week in Yokosuka. It's great to see again thanks for choosing Australia as your first overseas destination. Last week, we fired our first successful naval strike missile exercise at RIMPAC. From decision to invest in this capability to test firing, that period represents the fastest introduction into service of long-range missile capability in the navy today. That stems from interchangeability, interoperability partnership between our two navies with industry within defense between navy shipbuilding sustainment to prove that we are organization. That is what teamwork and interoperability and focus looks like. And that is the first of several that we have in the winds. The Royal Australian Navy, although small, is increasing in its lethality. That is one example. I look forward to the revelation of others in the future. Finally, the dialogue around the Australian Navy capability has quite often been helped by journalists and novelists. And the most recent contribution is by Mike Carlton who's become the unofficial historian of Royal Australian Navy. Mike's Lifelog latest book is diving into the history of Australian submarines at war. It begins with the history of the submarine and it talks about incredible achievements of our submariners over many, many years. I get no royalties. I hear it's going to cracking foreword and not just my family. But it's available for pre order now it’s out the sixth of August, just in time for Father's Day. I highly recommend it. Let's get the message of the incredible capabilities of the Australian submarine force over, achieved over 100 years. Let's elevate that. And Andrew, I expect you to tweet that because you have 26,000 followers or something like that. People will not want to join something they don't understand. It's time to time for the silence service to go loud. And this is the first step. Thank you.