AUKUS
Abbott made the 'least worse' call when he chose an off-the-shelf Japanese diesel electric boat.
I agree. But...
In federal politics, the best form of attack is Defence. Hence the subs announcement.
The original decision was influenced by politics and naturally produced a clusterf*ck. The new one will do the same, but for time being it puts Scotty from Marketing ahead on the national security/defence (as well as economic management) polls. The upcoming federal election will be fought by the coalition on the: "Would you really trust Labor and Albanese with the nation's defence, security and finances?"
In federal politics, the best form of attack is Defence. Hence the subs announcement.
The original decision was influenced by politics and naturally produced a clusterf*ck. The new one will do the same, but for time being it puts Scotty from Marketing ahead on the national security/defence (as well as economic management) polls. The upcoming federal election will be fought by the coalition on the: "Would you really trust Labor and Albanese with the nation's defence, security and finances?"
I just dont think it would be worth the financial cost. The big advantage for australia with a nuclear sub is the ability to transit and sit in a combat zone. Of which is a non issue to korea as any fights it would get into would be on it door step. Korea talks about it every so often but its an on again off again thing and not sure they could / would commit to the a development time it would take
At the time the budgeted cost was $40-50b to purchase. About half the cost you've calculated, originally.
I smile as I see people writing about countries acquiring nuclear powered submarines, as if it was a simple upgrade, from a ‘GT to GTI’. It is not, it is a whole new industry which needs to be built carefully and in stages. Take a look at the Brazilian approach to building their SSN. It has taken time, re-evaluations, re-designs and is progressing with help from France. It is not some nervous knee-jerk reaction as we see in Australia. Why Australia didn’t buy excellent large ocean-going submarines from Japan was likely based on nationalistic rather than military reasons.
On the same subject but a different point. At what time in our so-called democracy are we the people of the United Kingdom going to be asked our opinion about this fundamental change in strategic military policy? Defence issues may not be vote winners but if the ‘leadership’ is going to weaken any European/NATO contribution by diverting assets down under I for one would expect a debate to be held in the house of commons, not another bumbling rambling unchallenged announcement.
I am well aware of the rise of China, its speed its capabilities and its stated objectives which have been openly published many times. It is not going to stop or waver with the odd RN Frigate sailing through the Strait of Taiwan. The South China Sea was lost to China years ago, the naval bases there will support their fleets into the Indian Ocean and beyond.Does anyone seriously expect China to say 'Oh sorry, we'll just pack up and leave the islands then'?
The defence of Europe within the NATO Alliance is well understood, debated, funded and equipped. This shift in direction is none of these things.
On the same subject but a different point. At what time in our so-called democracy are we the people of the United Kingdom going to be asked our opinion about this fundamental change in strategic military policy? Defence issues may not be vote winners but if the ‘leadership’ is going to weaken any European/NATO contribution by diverting assets down under I for one would expect a debate to be held in the house of commons, not another bumbling rambling unchallenged announcement.
I am well aware of the rise of China, its speed its capabilities and its stated objectives which have been openly published many times. It is not going to stop or waver with the odd RN Frigate sailing through the Strait of Taiwan. The South China Sea was lost to China years ago, the naval bases there will support their fleets into the Indian Ocean and beyond.Does anyone seriously expect China to say 'Oh sorry, we'll just pack up and leave the islands then'?
The defence of Europe within the NATO Alliance is well understood, debated, funded and equipped. This shift in direction is none of these things.
PS for those who don't know the major differences between a diesel and nuclear powered sub.
This should help us in GHG reduction..
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank Christ Scomo, or was it Dutton, found an out.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
recceguy. Your location says a lot. People who live on isolated islands, with no-one to talk to, often go mad. Not that I think for a moment that is your location.
Winding back time, a Japanese sub purchase with additional AWD destroyers built in Adelaide, would have seen the commencement of a successful and timely naval build-up. If the CCP regional threat is as genuine as being presented, the Australian Navy is a basket case, leaving the only medium term option being an expansion of the RAAF. I guess one additional Growler is a start.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 3rd Oct 2021 at 01:04.
The military reason was they are relatively short-ranged submarines needing controversial forward basing ( Guam etc ). The national reason was pork barrel spending. The Japanese subs couldn't be built in Adelaide whereas the French sales team claimed their submarine design could.PM Abe was bitterly disappointed, betrayed and let down by Australia not choosing their submarines.
And he signed a contract - to deliver 12 subs with 90% build in Australia for $50B - which after 5+ years morphed into a bill for $90B with 50% build in Australia, and still not a firm set of design plans in sight, let alone an Adelaide tradie with a welding torch in his hand.
Thank Christ Scomo, or was it Dutton, found an out.
Thank Christ Scomo, or was it Dutton, found an out.
I am betting there wont be a large amount of local on what ever is picked mostly because osborne shipyard and ASC/BAE will be busy with collins life extension, first 3 hunter class frigates but probably all 9 and the Arafura OPV's
Politically the Japanese did care. Two years ago, seeing the Naval Group promises starting to unravel, they confirmed their submarines were still available and still with the relatively speedy delivery timeframe.
I wonder why Canada was left out of this new alliance within an alliance?
Excluded from AUKUS? Canada Should Seek to Invite Itself Aboard
For Canada, though, the news is generating concern that we were not invited to a rather important party, given our membership in the “Five Eyes” security network comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
That concern is not unreasonable. The Five Eyes group, stemming from the historic relationship between the British Empire and the United States during World War II, unites English-speaking democracies with similar values into an intelligence-sharing agreement designed to keep each member country safer.
Why didn’t this body, rather than a subset that excludes Canada and New Zealand, enter into the new pact?
There are several possible explanations. One rather obvious one is that Canadian policy makers were, until recently, embroiled in an election campaign. Another is that New Zealand has a standing policy of not permitting nuclear-powered ships to navigate its waters. Nor does Canada own or operate any nuclear vessels.
But neither a fleeting distraction nor the nuclear issue justifies leaving out Canada. Quite simply, this country should quietly but persistently press to be included — the sooner, the better.
Here’s why. Canada isn’t located near China, obviously. But we depend heavily on Indo-Pacific waters for trade, and we share a historic commitment to freedom of navigation with our allies, which all countries need to help uphold. In the face of China’s muscular rise and its growing willingness to project power, those trade routes are critical choke points for our economy, as well.
More fundamentally, though, Canada should be at the table because technology-focused defence cooperation is increasingly critical to national security in the twenty-first century.
Excluded from AUKUS? Canada Should Seek to Invite Itself Aboard
For Canada, though, the news is generating concern that we were not invited to a rather important party, given our membership in the “Five Eyes” security network comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
That concern is not unreasonable. The Five Eyes group, stemming from the historic relationship between the British Empire and the United States during World War II, unites English-speaking democracies with similar values into an intelligence-sharing agreement designed to keep each member country safer.
Why didn’t this body, rather than a subset that excludes Canada and New Zealand, enter into the new pact?
There are several possible explanations. One rather obvious one is that Canadian policy makers were, until recently, embroiled in an election campaign. Another is that New Zealand has a standing policy of not permitting nuclear-powered ships to navigate its waters. Nor does Canada own or operate any nuclear vessels.
But neither a fleeting distraction nor the nuclear issue justifies leaving out Canada. Quite simply, this country should quietly but persistently press to be included — the sooner, the better.
Here’s why. Canada isn’t located near China, obviously. But we depend heavily on Indo-Pacific waters for trade, and we share a historic commitment to freedom of navigation with our allies, which all countries need to help uphold. In the face of China’s muscular rise and its growing willingness to project power, those trade routes are critical choke points for our economy, as well.
More fundamentally, though, Canada should be at the table because technology-focused defence cooperation is increasingly critical to national security in the twenty-first century.
Canada has enough problems funding the armed forces they have - they don't have the political will to invest more
I wonder why Canada was left out of this new alliance within an alliance?
Excluded from AUKUS? Canada Should Seek to Invite Itself Aboard
Excluded from AUKUS? Canada Should Seek to Invite Itself Aboard