Forum needs to be active so let's talk political.

[YAPN]

I rest my case.....we're F....ked.

I know. And there is only one thing we can do about it...

Let's brew beer!

 

[Dave70]

And what countries is old Vlad likely to visit that are signatories to the ICC?

Haha!
They haven't even collared old Joseph Kony yet. Remember him?

https://www.icc-cpi.int/uganda/kony

 

[djebel]

Haha!
They haven't even collared old Joseph Kony yet. Remember him?

https://www.icc-cpi.int/uganda/kony

It's almost as though clicking "Like", signing online petitions, and posting outraged drivel online....doesn't actually achieve anything in the real world .

 

[livo]

If the US is able to provoke a maritime war with China we will all be riding bicycles in a month.

They'd be made in China wouldn't they? It'll take a while to dig the Malvern Star plans out of the archive. Where can you buy Sturmey Archer 3 speed gear hubs or spare pawls and springs these days? I'm glad we've got a couple of grass powered horses.

 

[Paddy Melon]

I'm glad we've got a couple of grass powered horses.

Sometimes the simple things in life are the best.

 

[Seras]

It's worth remembering as well that a Chinese embassy official provided a list of 14 grievances (which are incredibly petty and childish) China has with Australia - then tried to walk this back when it backfired on them. They've shown increasing aggression on multiple levels when things don't go the way they want them to - so it's always good to know others tendencies.

In no particular order:
- Tomahawk cruise missiles are designed to carry multiple varients of warheads, so it's misleading to say they're designed to carry nuclear warheads. e.g the M777 howitzer Australia has had for decades can fire nuclear shells. In contrast Tomahawks have been used since the 1980's tens of thousands of times for conventional munitions strikes - and not once for nukes.
- Scomo announced in SEP21 that Australia would be acquiring Tomahawks for our Hobart class destroyers - so yes they can be used in the Virginia class subs but seeing as these are a LONG way off ever being delivered they are going to be deployed in the surface fleet first.
- Prof. White is speculating regarding there being any formal agreement that any sub sold to Australia could be 'forced' to follow US directives etc or this being a condition of sale. The US is Australia's ally on defence matters but anything beyond this is simply speculation.
- China buys Australia's Iron Ore as it's general grade is higher than brazilian/african & the transport costs are under HALF the price of it's competitors. There's a reason why even when China was at the peak of it's tantrum about Australia calling for a COVID origin enquiry (placing huge tariffs on Australian barley, wine, seafood and many others) that it continued to buy our Iron Ore as it required. So relationships have nothing to do with it and you have to know they WISH they could have gone elsewhere but they realised given their immense demand for it they'd be 'cutting off their nose despite their face' & only hurting themselves.
- Not sure why folks feel there has to be a 'boots on the ground' invasion & occupation - which is incredibly unlikely due to a myriad of factors - vs a far more likely scenarios e.g long range standoff weapons used against critical infrastructure from sub or carrier launched aircraft.


Respectfully this is utter baseless nonsense and the definition of scaremongering. In a full scale nuclear war - we're all screwed anyway - even if the war was between Russia and the UK for example (and strikes limited to Europe) the fall out from this would almost certainly kill most of the planet. And in reality it'd go far beyond this.

You flatter us far too much thinking that China, who has a relatively small and basic Nuclear arsenal would in a nuclear war with the USA - even consider using them against Australian capital cities. To what end? Just to kill people? Makes no sense as you'd be trying to destroy your primary threat and ideally his facilities before he used them on you. And beyond this again this is baseless speculation with zero support for it.

At worst, in a conflict China e.g in the early days of an invasion of Taiwan - China might consider trying to destroy the US Surveillance facilities at Pine Gap - but I do not believe they would have the means to achieve this and the negatives of such a distant strike vs the very marginal benefit of even full success would be tiny i.e the USA has a LOT of such facilities.

FWIW I think this sub deal is an epic disaster for us as a nation. Lets be frank we've shown nothing but complete incompetence in sub procurement in our modern history. The Collins were a hybrid design custom made for our requests that was SO BAD part way through construction of them experts were actually saying they should be stopped and sold for scrap metal. They had cost overruns, major issues and massive delays - in all they were terrible. And we started looking for a replacement quite early on in their lifecycle.

Abbott wanted to buy $20B worth of Japanese subs. That was scupered. We sat on our thumbs and Turnbull signed up to buy $40B worth of French subs (the design again was a *******ised version as these were low grade uranium powered subs, which the French were happy to sell us but we INSISTED the design be completely changed so they can on Diesel/Electric - which they advised against but agreed to do for us).

The US then badmouthed the heck out of this choice and advised they would not allow their combat systems to be installed into French subs, the gist of which seems to be they had security concerns about doing this - which reeks of BS to me........as they instead convinced us to cop a 555 million EURO break fee and renege on this deal to instead buy from them. Which we did, like the poor kid at school who blows his entire household budget to buy a fancy pair of trainers like his Rich Mate has a whole cupboard full of.

The irony is the diesel/electric subs are said by experts to compliment nuclear boats (which make up 100% of the US fleet) - as when on their electric cycle they are quieter than the nuke powered. Each has their pro's and cons but the nuc subs are massively more expensive and now we also have all kinds of ancillary costs and headaches e.g will be operating 3 completely different sub models at the same time.

It's already been flagged that the Army and AF will lose funding to cover this - so that estimated $368B (which will only go up, not down) could have given a lot more bang for buck if we'd bought off the shelf subs in proven models and a bunch of other conventional deterent weapons to suit our needs.

The cherry on top is that many experts feel that its quite possible that given the extended delivery timeline that by the time we get these subs, technology changes in underwater drones and intelligent sea mines etc will make them highly vulnerable and too risky to use in anything other than safe home waters. Its a complete cluster__k IMHO.

It's worth remembering as well that a Chinese embassy official provided a list of 14 grievances (which are incredibly petty and childish) China has with Australia - then tried to walk this back when it backfired on them. They've shown increasing aggression on multiple levels when things don't go the way they want them to - so it's always good to know others tendencies.

The thing is that nuclear subs are much more suited to Australia needs than conventional. Diesel subs need to constantly be resupplied with fuel so that means a lot more downtime in port resupplying, and this is compounded by the slow speed relative to nuclear. The greater the range the more nuclear subs win out, and we have a massive range that our subs might be expected to operate in, which is far greater than most nations that rely on conventional subs.
The other issue is stealth. Conventional subs have to constantly "snorting" to expel exhaust gasses to run their diesel engines to recharge. As detection ability of radar and sonar gets better detection "snorting" becomes an increasing weak point. And while it's true that drones could become an issue, it's impossible to say for certain and we can't make military investment decisions based on "what ifs". Nuclear subs are still a better bet because of their increased versatility, with their 1500km range Tomahawk missiles and larger size potentially allowing them to carry drones of their own.
All in all, I'd say that nuclear subs are the most transformative military hardware that we could have, the ability to lurk silently anywhere and destroy even aircraft carriers is a serious headache for the CCP to consider in an invasion of Taiwan or any other type of naval military aggression. Of course the prices is enormous, but that's pretty par-for-the-course these days (last year, the UK spent £267 pounds for environmental documentation for a 23km road). And the benefit is we get our own industrial and technical capabilities which could also potentially benefit in other areas such as nuclear power.

 

[Nick the Knife]

The thing is that nuclear subs are much more suited to Australia needs than conventional. Diesel subs need to constantly be resupplied with fuel so that means a lot more downtime in port resupplying, and this is compounded by the slow speed relative to nuclear. The greater the range the more nuclear subs win out, and we have a massive range that our subs might be expected to operate in, which is far greater than most nations that rely on conventional subs.
The other issue is stealth. Conventional subs have to constantly "snorting" to expel exhaust gasses to run their diesel engines to recharge. As detection ability of radar and sonar gets better detection "snorting" becomes an increasing weak point. And while it's true that drones could become an issue, it's impossible to say for certain and we can't make military investment decisions based on "what ifs". Nuclear subs are still a better bet because of their increased versatility, with their 1500km range Tomahawk missiles and larger size potentially allowing them to carry drones of their own.
All in all, I'd say that nuclear subs are the most transformative military hardware that we could have, the ability to lurk silently anywhere and destroy even aircraft carriers is a serious headache for the CCP to consider in an invasion of Taiwan or any other type of naval military aggression. Of course the prices is enormous, but that's pretty par-for-the-course these days (last year, the UK spent £267 pounds for environmental documentation for a 23km road). And the benefit is we get our own industrial and technical capabilities which could also potentially benefit in other areas such as nuclear power.

Suffice to say it's a VERY complex area - and I for one do not pretend at all to be an expert - one thing all can agree on - it's a staggering cost. And this at a time when Australia's budget is already struggling to handle all the 'needs' it already has.

This article written back in 2017 is very good in talking about the relative strengths of Nuclear powers subs (SSN's) vs Diesel-Electric (SSK): Nuclear versus diesel-electric: the case for conventional submarines for the RAN | The Strategist

The key takeaway for me is that SSNs are more about force projection and thus wondrfully suited to a defence like the USN. And this is clearly the case as literally 100% of their subs are SSNs.

But as stated earlier, experts will say that SSKs compliment SSNs alongside them as they have different strengths and weakness. And if Australia's subs were ever used in anger they'd be alongside the USA's SSNs with near 100% certainty - as they are for all intents and purposes bought with only China in mind. Indonesia, Malaysia etc are not a threat to Australia.

"Snorting", coming close to the surface so oxygen can be taken onboard & diesel engines run to recharge the batteries - is not ideal but if you're using on the defensive, not so much of an issue. This is where the force projection element again comes in, so if they were really to defend Australia's immediate area it'd be less of a concern - as it's been done since WW2 and with new systems SSKs can stay submerged for up to 2 weeks.

That said I agree with you - they are clearly the top of the range subs Australia could have bought - and it seems getting access to them before never was even an option. So you do have to wonder WHY the USA suddenly decided to allow us to access them? Even if we're getting their well used 2nd hand ones...at a 'mates rate' deal I'm sure :-/

Does tie into the bigger picture of whether it's really in our national interest to go to war with China - soley as the USA has decided them taking back Taiwan is a bridge to far? Being Taiwan's history - that it was always part of China until the Nationalists fled there & made it their bastion after losing the civil war against Mao's Communists - I do think they've a pretty reasonable case for reunification.

Is a tough one as it's not like in a military sense the USA needs us to back them up - but it would be expected - but does that make it a good idea? As the USA is pursueing a policy of containment against China, who it knows is its only peer threat to a global hegemony. If we allowed Taiwan maybe they'd then want part of Vietnam etc - who knows, is tricky.

I still think we could have been very effective partners to the US in any conflict with more modest SSKs to compliment their SSN fleet, which would also be better suited to purely defensive conflicts in our homewater should as experts say the role of subs diminish due to evolving tech that makes their detection & destruction much easier. This would also have freed up plenty of funds to upgrade our Army and AF, whereas now they look to have funding cuts to pay for these subs. We can only hope they'll never be needed - as mankind has enough on it's plate already.

 

[Paddy Melon]

I think China's economy is dependent on world trade, and I think they believe that too, so it's not in their interest to expand their horizons to Australia for example. They want Taiwan back for whatever reason , maybe "saving face". What concerns me is, if China moves in on Taiwan will others intervene militarily? Look at Ukraine they are still defending themselve? What would be different in a Taiwan invasion?

 

[YAPN]

FWIW I think that China will impose a naval blockade on Taiwan while it seizes control, which would not be that hard. It would then be a matter for the US to decide if it wants to use military force to disrupt the blockade, opening up a wider conflict.

One thing we know for certain is that the US will not stay engaged for very long. Two or three presidential cycles at best.

 

[Feldon]

In no particular order:
- Tomahawk cruise missiles are designed to carry multiple varients of warheads, so it's misleading to say they're designed to carry nuclear warheads. e.g the M777 howitzer Australia has had for decades can fire nuclear shells. In contrast Tomahawks have been used since the 1980's tens of thousands of times for conventional munitions strikes - and not once for nukes.
- Scomo announced in SEP21 that Australia would be acquiring Tomahawks for our Hobart class destroyers - so yes they can be used in the Virginia class subs but seeing as these are a LONG way off ever being delivered they are going to be deployed in the surface fleet first.
- Prof. White is speculating regarding there being any formal agreement that any sub sold to Australia could be 'forced' to follow US directives etc or this being a condition of sale. The US is Australia's ally on defence matters but anything beyond this is simply speculation.
- China buys Australia's Iron Ore as it's general grade is higher than brazilian/african & the transport costs are under HALF the price of it's competitors. There's a reason why even when China was at the peak of it's tantrum about Australia calling for a COVID origin enquiry (placing huge tariffs on Australian barley, wine, seafood and many others) that it continued to buy our Iron Ore as it required. So relationships have nothing to do with it and you have to know they WISH they could have gone elsewhere but they realised given their immense demand for it they'd be 'cutting off their nose despite their face' & only hurting themselves.
- Not sure why folks feel there has to be a 'boots on the ground' invasion & occupation - which is incredibly unlikely due to a myriad of factors - vs a far more likely scenarios e.g long range standoff weapons used against critical infrastructure from sub or carrier launched aircraft.


Respectfully this is utter baseless nonsense and the definition of scaremongering. In a full scale nuclear war - we're all screwed anyway - even if the war was between Russia and the UK for example (and strikes limited to Europe) the fall out from this would almost certainly kill most of the planet. And in reality it'd go far beyond this.

You flatter us far too much thinking that China, who has a relatively small and basic Nuclear arsenal would in a nuclear war with the USA - even consider using them against Australian capital cities. To what end? Just to kill people? Makes no sense as you'd be trying to destroy your primary threat and ideally his facilities before he used them on you. And beyond this again this is baseless speculation with zero support for it.

At worst, in a conflict China e.g in the early days of an invasion of Taiwan - China might consider trying to destroy the US Surveillance facilities at Pine Gap - but I do not believe they would have the means to achieve this and the negatives of such a distant strike vs the very marginal benefit of even full success would be tiny i.e the USA has a LOT of such facilities.

FWIW I think this sub deal is an epic disaster for us as a nation. Lets be frank we've shown nothing but complete incompetence in sub procurement in our modern history. The Collins were a hybrid design custom made for our requests that was SO BAD part way through construction of them experts were actually saying they should be stopped and sold for scrap metal. They had cost overruns, major issues and massive delays - in all they were terrible. And we started looking for a replacement quite early on in their lifecycle.

Abbott wanted to buy $20B worth of Japanese subs. That was scupered. We sat on our thumbs and Turnbull signed up to buy $40B worth of French subs (the design again was a *******ised version as these were low grade uranium powered subs, which the French were happy to sell us but we INSISTED the design be completely changed so they can on Diesel/Electric - which they advised against but agreed to do for us).

The US then badmouthed the heck out of this choice and advised they would not allow their combat systems to be installed into French subs, the gist of which seems to be they had security concerns about doing this - which reeks of BS to me........as they instead convinced us to cop a 555 million EURO break fee and renege on this deal to instead buy from them. Which we did, like the poor kid at school who blows his entire household budget to buy a fancy pair of trainers like his Rich Mate has a whole cupboard full of.

The irony is the diesel/electric subs are said by experts to compliment nuclear boats (which make up 100% of the US fleet) - as when on their electric cycle they are quieter than the nuke powered. Each has their pro's and cons but the nuc subs are massively more expensive and now we also have all kinds of ancillary costs and headaches e.g will be operating 3 completely different sub models at the same time.

It's already been flagged that the Army and AF will lose funding to cover this - so that estimated $368B (which will only go up, not down) could have given a lot more bang for buck if we'd bought off the shelf subs in proven models and a bunch of other conventional deterent weapons to suit our needs.

The cherry on top is that many experts feel that its quite possible that given the extended delivery timeline that by the time we get these subs, technology changes in underwater drones and intelligent sea mines etc will make them highly vulnerable and too risky to use in anything other than safe home waters. Its a complete cluster__k IMHO.

It's worth remembering as well that a Chinese embassy official provided a list of 14 grievances (which are incredibly petty and childish) China has with Australia - then tried to walk this back when it backfired on them. They've shown increasing aggression on multiple levels when things don't go the way they want them to - so it's always good to know others tendencies.

Tomahawk cruise missiles are designed to carry multiple varients of warheads, so it's misleading to say they're designed to carry nuclear warheads. e.g the M777 howitzer Australia has had for decades can fire nuclear shells.

a) Tomahawk cruise missiles were designed to carry the W80 nuclear warhead. The US replaced the W80s with conventional high explosive warheads when their strategy moved towards deploying nuke cruise missiles from aircraft rather than from ships and boats. But the old W80 warheads are still in storage. Would be easy to recommission them for Aust use. You don’t think that this possibility has been lost on China? You don’t think that they see this as a provocation by an aggressor?

b) I don’t know why you’re bringing up the nuclear capable M777 howitzers. If it’s to show that Aust has other capabilities to deliver nuclear munitions on to China then you should have mentioned the FA-18 Hornets. At least they could fly close to China by island hopping. The M777 is a field gun with a range of about 30 miles. Or were you thinking of storming the Chinese beaches with these guns?

Tomahawks have been used since the 1980's tens of thousands of times for conventional munitions strikes - and not once for nukes.

No, that is an exaggeration, they have not been used “tens of thousands of times”. And of course they haven’t been used with nuclear warheads (if they had done neither you nor I would be here to write about it).

Prof. White is speculating regarding there being any formal agreement that any sub sold to Australia could be 'forced' to follow US directives etc or this being a condition of sale. The US is Australia's ally on defence matters but anything beyond this is simply speculation.

Hugh White doesn’t offer speculation but well researched and considered opinion. He has a bit of form in the area of US-Australia defence relations going way back to before Beazley and Hawke engineered our involvement in the 1st Gulf War (1991). His thinking on the AKUS situation ought to be calmly considered. Of course you don’t have to agree with him, but his views cannot be rationally dismissed as “simply speculation”.

You flatter us far too much thinking that China, who has a relatively small and basic Nuclear arsenal would in a nuclear war with the USA - even consider using them against Australian capital cities. To what end? Just to kill people? Makes no sense as you'd be trying to destroy your primary threat and ideally his facilities before he used them on you. And beyond this again this is baseless speculation with zero support for it.

a) Our new nuclear powered subs will be built in Adelaide and their operational base will be in Perth. Both these cities will be obvious first strike nuclear targets of China if hostilities break out and escalate with the US and its allies. The maintenance facility will be also be a target. It will be located somewhere on the east coast - Port Kembla (close to Sydney), Newcastle and Brisbane and the main options.

b) Australian governments have always followed US directions regarding our military engagements overseas - always. Whether it be a Labor or Liberal government in power at the time we follow. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan - we always follow (just as we followed the poms before the yanks). You are speculating to say that we will suddenly reject US directives to join them in combat against China. All precedence is against it. You’re entitled to that opinion but without support it’s just unsubstantiated "speculation". Mind you, if we did refuse to join the US in a war against China it would be the end of the ANZUS military alliance that binds us. And this, as ex PMs Fraser and Keating have both said, would be a good thing for Australia.

It's worth remembering as well that a Chinese embassy official provided a list of 14 grievances (which are incredibly petty and childish) China has with Australia - then tried to walk this back when it backfired on them.

It’s called diplomacy. You start small with what you have called “incredibly petty and childish” sanctions so you can escalate sanctions later if we don’t bend to their will. You don’t just go in and kick 'em in the balls as a first move. Make no mistake though, if China did decide to cut off all trade with Aust we’d be a banana republic within a month. And say goodbye to your savings and superannuation. Beijing and Canberra both know that ultimately, we need them more than they need us. Washington knows the score too but couldn’t give a **** about us. And the US is not going to replace the buying power of China for our commodities (and the US economy is going down the toilet as I write - but a good war with China might save it while millions will die).

They've shown increasing aggression on multiple levels when things don't go the way they want them to - so it's always good to know others tendencies.

What “increasing aggression”? Has China sailed battle fleets past New York or LA? like the US has sailed through the Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea near the Chinese mainland. Geez, Aust shat itself when China did a small deal with the Solomon Islands. Despite the overblown drivel in the media about Chinese aggression it is the US that is clearly the aggressor.
Taiwan is part of the Peoples Republic of China - that’s the US and Aust’s long held position (the One China Policy) since 1972 ("the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China"). Taiwan has no status in the UN. The US practice in recent years of sailing its warships through its waters and provoking breakaway politics in Taiwan is an extreme and existential provocation to China. Thank God that China is so moderate in its reactions, so far.

Hug your kids people.

 

[Nick the Knife]

I think China's economy is dependent on world trade, and I think they believe that too, so it's not in their interest to expand their horizons to Australia for example. They want Taiwan back for whatever reason , maybe "saving face". What concerns me is, if China moves in on Taiwan will others intervene militarily? Look at Ukraine they are still defending themselve? What would be different in a Taiwan invasion?

They want Taiwan back, as for all intents and purposes it's always been part of China - it's history is detailed but to keep simple the Western leaders post WW2 signed off on it being given back to the mainland Chinese, who had it for hundreds of years beforehand - though it had gone through many 'occupiers' in the past 500yrs. China is well and truly on the record at saying they're going to reunite it, and I think they have more skin in the game than anyone else.

But yes others will intervene militarily - as the US has made it clear it supports an independant Taiwan and will act militarily to ensure this. So something has got to give.

The US as the reigning global hegemony cannot back down on this easily - but China also has said it won't back down either.

To compare Ukraine & Taiwan too much is apples with Oranges. And many, many levels too numerous to mention. The only relevance is it's a smaller power staving off a larger aggressor. But thats about where the comparisons end.

The incredibly influential Foreign Policy Academic, John Mearsheimer (whose work is well worth reading if you have a chance or his Youtube tuts) - has no doubt a conflict will occur as both sides have so much riding on it.

Alas I think we'll be politically compelled to get involved - which I think is a terrible move on a bunch of levels. Essentially the US wants to geographically contain China and they want to expand and start to get some forward military bases etc

FWIW I think that China will impose a naval blockade on Taiwan while it seizes control, which would not be that hard. It would then be a matter for the US to decide if it wants to use military force to disrupt the blockade, opening up a wider conflict.

One thing we know for certain is that the US will not stay engaged for very long. Two or three presidential cycles at best.

You think a naval blockade would not be that hard with the USN opposing them? I think you jest. For all the on paper size & specs the Chinese military has - it's still had NO combat experience since the Korean War. And it's up against the biggest and most active military in the world.

Like in sports, experience in combat matters a lot and the US knows how to fight a war successfully like nobody else.

Of course like in any war or a street fight - eother side might be bluffing - you have to as the Yanks say,'**** around and find out.' But I suspect both sides are willing to back their words up with actions....not to the extent of nuclear war, but definitely conventional strikes.

Taiwan is very well prepared & has notoriously difficult terrain thats been prepped heavily for defence. Even if you can impose a naval blockade thats not going to get you any closer to seizing it and naval invasions are notoriously hard to pull off, though if any country was prepared to eat massive casualties for success it'd be China.

A convention war between the US and China wouldn't last very long - as it'd be a true heavy weight class, so it's not to be confused with non-conventional foes on home soil which are the USA's and most militaries only notable loss in post WW2 history e.g Vietnam, Afganistan etc.

Beng allies with the US is one thing but would getting in a full on war with China make us safer or not? And would it really benefit us or the US more? Complex and messy situation indeed as China has shown it will make an example of a soft target like Australia, to make it's points on the global stage.

 

[Feldon]

The thing is that nuclear subs are much more suited to Australia needs than conventional. Diesel subs need to constantly be resupplied with fuel so that means a lot more downtime in port resupplying, and this is compounded by the slow speed relative to nuclear. The greater the range the more nuclear subs win out, and we have a massive range that our subs might be expected to operate in, which is far greater than most nations that rely on conventional subs.
The other issue is stealth. Conventional subs have to constantly "snorting" to expel exhaust gasses to run their diesel engines to recharge. As detection ability of radar and sonar gets better detection "snorting" becomes an increasing weak point. And while it's true that drones could become an issue, it's impossible to say for certain and we can't make military investment decisions based on "what ifs". Nuclear subs are still a better bet because of their increased versatility, with their 1500km range Tomahawk missiles and larger size potentially allowing them to carry drones of their own.
All in all, I'd say that nuclear subs are the most transformative military hardware that we could have, the ability to lurk silently anywhere and destroy even aircraft carriers is a serious headache for the CCP to consider in an invasion of Taiwan or any other type of naval military aggression. Of course the prices is enormous, but that's pretty par-for-the-course these days (last year, the UK spent £267 pounds for environmental documentation for a 23km road). And the benefit is we get our own industrial and technical capabilities which could also potentially benefit in other areas such as nuclear power.

Just briefly - the diesel-electric subs and nuclear powered subs are intended for completely different strategic missions. Diesel-electric are quiet and run almost silently on electric motors when submerged. They wait close in shore and blend into the sonar background noise of crashing waves etc. They wait to torpedo enemy warships blockading our trade routes through the tight straits and island passages to our north. They don't need speed because once on station they stay in the area moving slowly. They don't need endurance at sea because we regularly rotate the subs on station with others in the boat fleet. They don't need long range because they don't go far - only to the islands to our north to defend our trade routes from economic blockade. The Collins class subs (diesel-electric) fulfill this role now well because that is our strategic defence strategy - defending our trade routes with CHINA .

Conventional diesel-electric subs are also silent killers, even of US warships. See this RAN video.



Nuclear powered subs are intended for different missions entirely. They are bigger and noisier (you can't turn a nuclear reactor off - it runs all the time boiling water for the steam turbines) and so they are easier to detect and sink by an enemy. What they do well is project power far away to other countries, like CHINA. They do this well because they have enormous range and endurance and are a platform for long range assault weapons like cruise missiles. Acquiring nuclear powereed subs signals that we intend to be a threat to others. Not only China but our near neighbours too. Expect a regional arms race to begin - a race we cannot win.

 

[livo]

Suffice to say it's a VERY complex area - and I for one do not pretend at all to be an expert - one thing all can agree on - it's a staggering cost. And this at a time when Australia's budget is already struggling to handle all the 'needs' it already has.

If you didn't catch the interview this morning of Minister for Defence Personnel, Matt Keogh, on Today, the transcript is here.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2023-03-20/interview-karl-stefanovic-nine-today
In a nutshell, they don't know the cost of a submarine. Over time the deal will cost 0.15% of our GDP.

 

[YAPN]

You think a naval blockade would not be that hard with the USN opposing them? I think you jest.

No jest. Read it again.

I wrote that it would be easy to impose a naval blockade. It would certainly not be easy to maintain one.

 

[Feldon]

Seems a lot of Australians get their world view from mainstream media hacks like Andrew Bolt and/or Stan Grant, and acquire a smug self-perception that they are well informed. But they are duped by a controlled media, whether it is the ABC, Sky News, the Murdoch press, or whatever. On the big ticket items they almost all sing from the same song sheet.

Rarely, a journo momentarily breaks through the fog with a revelatory truth but it is quickly shut down (eg. Guardian media correspondent Amanda Meade’s recent take down of the spurious anti-China scaremongering invented by the Age and Sydney Morning Herald and pre-prepared to coincide with the announcement Albanese’s AKUS subs deal. Even the arch propagandists on the ABC’s ‘Media Watch’ program called the coverage “hysterical”. But most Australians (including many on this forum it seems) will believe the spin and echo it glibly to friends and family. It actually becomes part of their psyche).

For some clear air have a listen to this interview by former US judge and ex Fox News pundit (until he opposed Trump) Andrew Napolitano with retired warhorse US army colonel and author Douglas McGregor. Great questioning by the judge and brilliantly illuminating answers given. You don’t have to agree with their viewpoint, but you will hear things from people with long experience inside US govt. agencies and the war machine that are never mentioned in the mainstream media - viewpoints you need to know and consider. Educate yourself, continually. Because if you don’t the blood is on your hands too.

These days there is plenty of valuable and insightful information accessible to all through the Internet, but you have to go find it - like you might hunt down brewing information on this forum. It is not revealed on the six o’clock TV news. Have an open mind and hunt down answers to your questions about the world, if you actually really care.

(There are other interviews on this channel worth watching by people with other views - eg. ex CIA sleuth Jack Devine. The full interviews (about 30 mins) are under the ‘Live’ tab, and shorter topical extracts are filed under the ‘Video’ tab)

 

[Dave70]

Seems a lot of Australians get their world view from mainstream media hacks like Andrew Bolt and/or Stan Grant, and acquire a smug self-perception that they are well informed. But they are duped by a controlled media, whether it is the ABC, Sky News, the Murdoch press, or whatever. On the big ticket items they almost all sing from the same song sheet.

Rarely, a journo momentarily breaks through the fog with a revelatory truth but it is quickly shut down (eg. Guardian media correspondent Amanda Meade’s recent take down of the spurious anti-China scaremongering invented by the Age and Sydney Morning Herald and pre-prepared to coincide with the announcement Albanese’s AKUS subs deal. Even the arch propagandists on the ABC’s ‘Media Watch’ program called the coverage “hysterical”. But most Australians (including many on this forum it seems) will believe the spin and echo it glibly to friends and family. It actually becomes part of their psyche).

For some clear air have a listen to this interview by former US judge and ex Fox News pundit (until he opposed Trump) Andrew Napolitano with retired warhorse US army colonel and author Douglas McGregor. Great questioning by the judge and brilliantly illuminating answers given. You don’t have to agree with their viewpoint, but you will hear things from people with long experience inside US govt. agencies and the war machine that are never mentioned in the mainstream media - viewpoints you need to know and consider. Educate yourself, continually. Because if you don’t the blood is on your hands too.

These days there is plenty of valuable and insightful information accessible to all through the Internet, but you have to go find it - like you might hunt down brewing information on this forum. It is not revealed on the six o’clock TV news. Have an open mind and hunt down answers to your questions about the world, if you actually really care.

(There are other interviews on this channel worth watching by people with other views - eg. ex CIA sleuth Jack Devine. The full interviews (about 30 mins) are under the ‘Live’ tab, and shorter topical extracts are filed under the ‘Video’ tab)

All well and good, but i diD mY oWn rESeArCh also spawns monstrosities.
For example, who would have guessed there were so many constitutional lawyers and virologist out there. If covid taught us anything, there are literally tens of thousands. You'd imagine a group of such highly educated individuals could find a more productive use of their time than crafting shoddy placards, disrupting traffic and shitting in 'protest camp' fields around Canberra.

Now in the wake of Ukraine and the looming Taiwan / China brouhaha, you've got geopolitical intelligence analyst's coming out of the woodwork.

Its not all that difficult to nut out which media outlets lean this way or that. Partisanship determines the flavour. Is it really a surprise that Bolts views are the polar opposite of those expressed on the ABC?


Educate yourself, continually. Because if you don’t the blood is on your hands too.

OK, fair enough. What should we do with this new found intelligence? What's the next move? What will you do with it?
How best do we avoid this blood on our hands?

​

 

[livo]

The best investigative reporting on the planet

 

[RobB]

How best do we avoid this blood on our hands?

​

Wear gloves? It’s pretty much the first thing they teach you in any reputable online virology course.

 

[Dave70]

Wear gloves? It’s pretty much the first thing they teach you in any reputable online virology course.

Year RIGHT...'gloves'.. Blood is NATURAL, why would I want to PROTECT myself against it???
CLEARLY you're, just like your MATES who sell MASKS, you're on the payroll of BIG PPE!!!

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!!!!!

 

[Feldon]

All well and good, but i diD mY oWn rESeArCh also spawns monstrosities.
For example, who would have guessed there were so many constitutional lawyers and virologist out there. If covid taught us anything, there are literally tens of thousands. You'd imagine a group of such highly educated individuals could find a more productive use of their time than crafting shoddy placards, disrupting traffic and shitting in 'protest camp' fields around Canberra.

Now in the wake of Ukraine and the looming Taiwan / China brouhaha, you've got geopolitical intelligence analyst's coming out of the woodwork.

Its not all that difficult to nut out which media outlets lean this way or that. Partisanship determines the flavour. Is it really a surprise that Bolts views are the polar opposite of those expressed on the ABC?


Educate yourself, continually. Because if you don’t the blood is on your hands too.

OK, fair enough. What should we do with this new found intelligence? What's the next move? What will you do with it?
How best do we avoid this blood on our hands?

​

It’s called thinking for yourself, Dave. You should try it sometime. Might calm your nerves.

You see, if you want to live in a democracy you have to get used to the idea of people having different points of view to yours. Moreover, they are entitled to them and their right to hold them should be celebrated. People can even take them out on the streets and demonstrate about them. It’s a ***** isn’t it? Most of us as we enter adulthood learn to not only cope with the burden of entertaining two or more opposing ideas in our heads at the same time in order to reach our own conclusions, but to learn from it. A diversity of ideas expands the intellect and should not be howled down.

As for it creating “monstrosities” - well, your monster might be another man’s angel. If you struggle with that concept you might find the plot line in Shrek illuminating.

Do you have a problem wuth democracy, Dave? You seem to be calling for a form of government where our elected representative must step aside and pass power over to unelected ‘experts’ in the bureaucracy of government and in big business. It has a name - Fascism. A lot of us here have relatives who died fighting it in WW2.

I could go on about how there is rarely one expert opinion that is right, and how experts often get it very wrong or simply build a case on lies. I could mention the IT experts ringing the alarm bells about the Millennium Bug (or Y2K) of 1999. Or the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by the ‘Coallition of the Willing’ (20 years ago this week) based on expert opinion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - he didn’t but millions died as a result. But instead I attach an old press clipping I took back in the mid-1980s when I was thinking about free speech and government censorship. Hope you have fun playing catch-up.

As for how you cope with the moral dilemma you pose in your final question, well that’s a matter for you and your conscience, when you find it. I hope you do.