Do you have an opinion on Chinas incursions into so called disputed waters over he past decade or what about their inflammatory comments about invading Japan or Taiwan. The problem with you Canuks is that aside from your oil and teacher pension investments inveigling into countries companies you really are quite anonymous...nay useless. Vive La Canada
I think China is being overly aggressive in the SCS and I'd like to see the Americans up the stakes there. I've never heard of China threatening to invade Japan, do you have a link? Viva La Canada Libre!
Australia's submarine program has truly lost its rudder
China is well on its way to achieving its goal of complete military modernisation by 2027 and already has more warships and submarines than the US. China's shipyards launch a new sub every year or so.
Peter Hartcher
Australia is well on its way to achieving world champion status in faffing about with submarine acquisition. As of Thursday, Australia has no agreement with anyone to build any new submarines whatsoever.
China has 66 submarines. It's expected to have 10 more by 2030, six of those nuclear powered, according to the US Office of Naval Intelligence.
By that time, Australia will have exactly as many subs as it has today, which is the same number it had a quarter-century earlier, according to Morrison government's statements on Thursday.
That is, Australia will have the same six Collins class diesel powered subs that were first commissioned by the Hawke government, assuming they're still functional. Their retirement has been postponed repeatedly as successive governments - Labor and Liberal - have fumbled their replacements.
So what was all the fanfare from Scott Morrison, Joe Biden and Boris Johnson on Thursday? Australia, the US and UK have announced an "enhanced trilateral security partnership", the inelegantly named AUKUS. It is not a treaty and doesn't pretend to be.
But it does represent an increased level of trust and an intensified commitment to share technology and advanced weaponry. This includes co-operation on some of the same next-generation technologies that Beijing has declared as its highest tech priorities - quantum computing, quantum communication, artificial intelligence and cyber.
This could prove to be the most important element of the agreement in equipping Australia for its own defence in the longer run, if it's executed intelligently, a major caveat.
As Joe Biden put it, AUKUS is a "historic step to deepen and formalise co-operation among all three of our nations, because we all recognise the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long-term."
But the three wartime allies have chosen to announce as their first initiative a plan to help Australia acquire nuclear propulsion technology for submarines.
Australia has spent the entire post-war era fantasising about nuclear power for its submarines. Till now, that's all they were, fantasies.
Morrison gets credit for persuading Washington and London to share their closely held nuclear expertise with Canberra. But what's Australia going to do with it? Beyond the theatrics of the announcement, what is the practical outcome?
First, the Morrison government has cancelled the existing contracts to buy 12 French-designed submarines. This was the deal that the Turnbull government struck five years ago. The subs, to be built in Adelaide based on French design, were to cost an estimated lifetime total of $90 billion. The first was supposed to enter the water in about a decade from now.
That agreement, which was feted as the basis of a new era in strategic relations with France, is now dead. All that remains is an argument about how much Australia will have to pay to cancel. And a deep sense of French dismay and betrayal. Much as Australia's abortive deal for Japanese subs ended years earlier.
And in its place? The Morrison government has announced an interdepartmental committee to spend the next 18 months talking to the US and UK "identifying the optimal pathway to deliver at least eight nuclear-powered submarines for Australia". They're to be built in Adelaide, the government tells us, so that will require a full reconfiguration of the shipyards and workforce. But there is no known design and certainly no contracts. In other words, it's a plan to have a plan.
But we know from the Morrison government that the proposed new nuclear subs will be delivered years later than the French-designed subs, and cost more. And because it's planning "at least eight", Australia could end up with fewer than the 12 in the previous deal.
Nuclear propulsion will, if it ever becomes operative in an Australian sub, allow subs to remain on station longer, underwater longer and travel faster. The subs aren't proposed to have nuclear arms.
The nuclear reactors that drive them would be inserted as sealed units by the US or UK. Canberra says that no civil or military nuclear capability will be developed in Australia.
"We'd be buying a nuclear reactor in a box," says ASPI's sub specialist, Marcus Hellyer. "It does make us even more dependent on the US. At any point they can turn off the technology. The question then is what expertise we can develop to operate and sustain the subs."
Australia can now contemplate another decade or two with no new subs. And even if this proposal goes to plan, Australia will not have a full sovereign capability but an increased defence dependency on the US. Perhaps Morrison thinks that America, having produced one Donald Trump, could not possibly produce another.
So when Beijing's spokesmen fulminate against this announcement, don't be surprised if they have to pause to laugh into their sleeves.
Australia's submarine program has truly lost its rudder (msn.com)
Forget about the predictable hype, the equally predictable Gallic wounded pride, and Chinese routine, knee jerk 'expression of concern'. What we are talking about here is a "Statement of Intent". Nothing contractually binding, no suppliers or purchase contracts organised- and as best I'm aware, no consideration given to the fact Australia will require another sub base in the north (perhaps HMAS Coonawarra, Darwin can be refitted and extended) for this to pose any credible counterthreat to the Chinese, or provide the much larger US boat fleet with a local facility.
So a lot of politics to come.
Last edited by sabang; 17-09-2021 at 04:00 AM.
So I log on to Google news this morning to monitor the world's headlines., Every major publication has it's take and analysis on the submarine deal between the US and Australia.
Fox's Headline is "Biden appears to forget Australian Prime Ministers name" LOL and people wonder why trampazees are so ignorant.
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
One wonders at all these shananigans. The Chinese militarisation of the SCS and their beligerant attitude has done more to convince countries in the Asian region to increase their defence spending than anyone else. The Kiwis have a long history of banning nuclear powered ships in their waters although It seems strange that a country that is a party to the Anzus treaty, with less than 10,000 people in its armed services and no combat aircraft in its air force, would shun the very people it will need to help defend it.
Last edited by Hugh Cow; 17-09-2021 at 08:00 AM.
Aukus: China calls the alliance 'irresponsible', Australia shrugs
Australia on Friday shrugged off angry Chinese reaction over US-UK-Australia alliance that will involve Australia receiving nuclear submarine technology from the trans-Atlantic partners. It is widely believed that the three countries have come together in order to counter growing Chinese assertion in the South China Sea and in view of its ever-increasing military expenditure.
US President Joe Biden announced the new Australia-US-Britain defence alliance on Wednesday. China's government described the alliance as an "extremely irresponsible"
China has its own "very substantive programme of nuclear submarine building", Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Friday in an interview with radio station 2GB.
"They have every right to take decisions in their national interests for their defence arrangements and of course so does Australia and all other countries," he said.
In a series of media interviews, the Australian leader said his government was reacting to changing dynamics in the Asia-Pacific region where territory is increasingly contested and competition is rising.
Australia is "very aware" of China's nuclear submarine capabilities and growing military investment, he said in an interview with Channel Seven television.
"We are interested in ensuring that international waters are always international waters and international skies are international skies, and that the rule of law applies equally in all of these places," he said.
Australia wanted to ensure that were no "no-go zones" in areas governed by international law, he said.
"That's very important whether it is for trade, whether it is for things like undersea cables, for planes and where they can fly. I mean that is the order that we need to preserve. That is what peace and stability provides for and that is what we are seeking to achieve."
Aukus: China calls the alliance 'irresponsible', Australia shrugs, World News | wionews.com
The French were trying to sell a pup,outdated tech and untried build and billions overvalued.
There is a cracker of a cartoon in todays Australia paper by Johannes Leak taking the
piss out of the woke PM of NZ.
Australia should have picked the Japanese from the start. You know, keep the money in the neighborhood and so on.
But if those Yankees give more contracts to LYNAS I won't be angry. I guess I'am just a capitalist swine.
Prime Minister Karen has already weighed in.
Australian nuclear subs will be banned from New Zealand waters: Ardern
WELLINGTON (AFP) - New Zealand will not lift a decades-long ban on nuclear-powered vessels entering its waters in the wake of key ally Australia's decision to develop a nuclear submarine fleet, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Thursday (Sept 16).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)