Why did Australia refuse to send a single ship to the Red Sea?

The United States is the world's policeman, so it is spread out around the world, while the Chinese, despite having an international operation, are more concentrated on just their territory.

Australia's spend is US$32.3 billion (A$50 billion). That makes us the 13th largest military spender.

However, contrasted to France's US$53.6 billion with a much smaller territory, including a coastline, to defend, and surrounded by NATO allies, it doesn't look so impressive.

Failing to hit the mark on several fronts

I did some historical research on the Australian Navy.

In colonial times we had a total of 31 commissioned vessels for a population of 5.5 million. Today, we have a total of 40 for a population of 26.6 million.

Even in those days, we were asked to be part of multinational coalitions, with a naval brigade composed of ships from New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia sailing to China in 1900 to support troops during the Boxer Rebellion.

Comparing numbers of vessels is of historical interest, but comparisons can't be direct. Ships come in different sizes and with differing capabilities, over time much of the reconnaissance work once done by navies is carried out by radar and satellite.

Yet, if we don't have a ship to spare to help protect a vital sea lane, then you know that our capacity is insufficient.

With the eighth longest coastline in the world, and as an island nation, our navy should be the most important wing of our armed forces.

While nuclear submarines are a vital addition, they are not sufficient. They will also put extreme pressure on defence budgets.

The Australian Defence Strategic Review 2023 identifies five tasks for our defence forces:

The Strategic Review is to be funded by reallocations of existing funds. Looking at the numbers and existing capacities it looks like significant additional funding is required.