Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

AUKUS

Old 12th Oct 2021, 10:42
  #521 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
The Growler is hi-tech, but not that hi-tech.

Remember Australia had reportedly expressed interest in buying the F-22 back in 2008, but had been rebuffed. You think selling a nuke sub would be any easier?

https://www.reuters.com/article/aust...31393720080220

https://thehill.com/opinion/national...submarine-deal
That is news to me. I recall our PM at the time, John Howard. Specifically saying he didn't want the F-22, as it didn't have enough A2G and was only interested in the F-35 and didn't want the pure A2A. This was before the ban and when LM had their F-22 power point presentation for Australia. that Labour 'review' was never serious. It was political election spin on the purchase of the Super hornet at the time. they never made a request to the US for the F-22.

Anyone remember the agreement the UK and US and Australia US Signed about 2020-2025? It was after Boeing got fined for tech transfer to Australia, less than we already had access to..

Last edited by golder; 12th Oct 2021 at 10:58.
golder is online now  
Old 12th Oct 2021, 11:08
  #522 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 147
Australia already has the same level access to US tech. When the dust settles, you will find that AUKUS is more about the UK and Australia opening up more to each other. Expect an upcoming agreement.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-09-...hnology/660820
2007...The US has agreed to upgrade Australia's access to American military technology and it will be lifted to the same level as Britain has.

The US agreement.. Defence Trade Co-operation Treaty,
UK signed in Sept 2007
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007...eration-treaty

Australia signed in November 2007
https://www1.defence.gov.au/business...s-trade-treaty

Last edited by golder; 12th Oct 2021 at 12:27.
golder is online now  
Old 12th Oct 2021, 11:26
  #523 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 330
There was also the SILEX, basically australia developed a means of enrichment and licensed the tech the US. Possibly https://www.info.dfat.gov.au/Info/Tr...5?OpenDocument might have something to do with it

On the F-22 it was never offered by the US and we never asked for it. There was a proposal for a crippled export version but it never left report form
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-raptor-abroad
rattman is online now  
Old 12th Oct 2021, 11:46
  #524 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 147
Further to the Defence Trade Co-operation Treaty.
https://www.acq.osd.mil/ic/DTCT.html


Ratification (RoR) were acted on by the Senate and House in late September, 2010. The UK Treaty entered into force in April 2012. The Australia Treaty entered into force on May 16, 2013.

The Treaties were drafted to meet specific operational and cooperative requirements of the U.S. and two key partners. The scope is specific to the types of collaboration between our Nations. The Treaties are specific to two of our closest allies, Australia and the UK, and would, presumably, afford greater cooperation and access than would be permissible under export control reform (ECR), which is a broad-based USG legal, regulatory, and policy reform that would affect the full range of USG export control activities.
golder is online now  
Old 12th Oct 2021, 21:54
  #525 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by rattman View Post
Japanese are absolutely on the cards, the top candidate to replace Suga said it during a televised debate, dont think korea will be in the short term and india is doing their own and are not signitories to the NPT which has a section that covers naval reactors






I got a captains tour of the canberra, with the EO, way back when it was first commissioned. Someone asked this question the EO had the reply already to go, he said the canberra had been modified to make sustained flight ops impractical. The things he mentioned was that some aviation fuel tanks had been converted to diesel for vehicles it carries, some ammunition elevators had not been installed and part of the hanger had been converted to light vehicle bays. Dont pretend to even have a clue how easy or not it would be to reverse these.

There was rumors that one of the british aircraft carriers would be one deployment to the horn of africa, assume Dijbouti, but with aukus it might be more practical to do it to sydney. That might give us a some impetus to buy some or convert some the existing order to F-35bs to fly off the UK and possibly reverse the mods on one of the a Canberra to fly F-35's
A few minutes ago I found this video on YouTube - I have not yet watched it from start to finish but it might be of interest.

WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 12th Oct 2021, 22:21
  #526 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 147
It's been done a 100 times...The ships are fully allotted in their current role. There would be a need to get new flat tops and associated support vessels. For this change in CONOPS.
golder is online now  
Old 12th Oct 2021, 22:25
  #527 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic View Post
A few minutes ago I found this video on YouTube - I have not yet watched it from start to finish but it might be of interest.
Yeah he does good vids, i am subbed to him. Well researched and thought out videos. On this specific video he pretty much hits all my major points and opinions.

I personally just think its a more we dont want to buy the aircraft and no longer have that tradition on naval aviation and also the navy has little interest in getting back into naval fixed wing aviation. Theres no technical reason why the navy couldn't do it, its more a lack of desire
rattman is online now  
Old 13th Oct 2021, 06:38
  #528 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Happy Bottom Riding Club
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by SevenTwentySeven View Post
LOL a nuclear sub hobbled with conventional weapons.

Somehow I don't think the Chinese are too concerned with this latest development.
Thereís a great book out there by Tom Clancy. It delves into one of the many scenarios that could develop in the South China sea, touching on Chinaís voracious appetite for expansion in the area. The Chinese, whilst formidable, are lacking in weapons and tactics. Meanwhile, the US, UK and Aus, have been dining out on conflict since the end of WW2. They will indeed be very concerned at the advent of Australian SSNís, built with US and UK know how operating in their back yard.
_pudknocker_ is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2021, 06:59
  #529 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 93
Posts: 1,947
Originally Posted by Flap Track 6 View Post
...HMS Agincourt...
Seems an appropriate name given the hissy fit the French are having.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2021, 07:31
  #530 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic View Post
A few minutes ago I found this video on YouTube - I have not yet watched it from start to finish but it might be of interest.

https://youtu.be/0QIA4bn4Pvc
Australia does not need aircraft carriers. The whole reason a replacement for the Sydney and Melbourne were abandoned is because in the context of our defence, aircraft carriers are a large, lumbering and easily neutralised asset - the only place they'd be used is away from home where the ability to defend them is questionable. Billions of dollars only to end up at the bottom of the sea.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2021, 08:03
  #531 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective View Post
Australia does not need aircraft carriers. The whole reason a replacement for the Sydney and Melbourne were abandoned is because in the context of our defence, aircraft carriers are a large, lumbering and easily neutralised asset - the only place they'd be used is away from home where the ability to defend them is questionable. Billions of dollars only to end up at the bottom of the sea.
Of course, some would argue that the carrier (or LHD carrying aircraft other than troop transports) defends a task group. Things like LHDs full of troops are likely to attract hostile attention - so a few aircraft capable of air defence and being able to based multiple ASW helicopters in the same ship tends to make the force more survivable.

Just saying...
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 13th Oct 2021, 08:18
  #532 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 3,656
WEBF - not everyone needs or wants aircraft carriers
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2021, 09:13
  #533 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
WEBF - not everyone needs or wants aircraft carriers
I dont think we need one or the fighters but we should have the capability to land and launch other countries if the situation warrants it
rattman is online now  
Old 13th Oct 2021, 13:12
  #534 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic View Post
Of course, some would argue that the carrier (or LHD carrying aircraft other than troop transports) defends a task group. Things like LHDs full of troops are likely to attract hostile attention - so a few aircraft capable of air defence and being able to based multiple ASW helicopters in the same ship tends to make the force more survivable.

Just saying...
It simply doesn't fit our current CONOPS. If it is that big of a stink. We would be going as part of a coalition and a joint landing. We have ASW ASuW helicopters and have just ordered another 12. I would assume the big boys will still have carriers, if needed.
golder is online now  
Old 13th Oct 2021, 16:43
  #535 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 3,656
The question re Australian carriers is where are they going to operate? Any action is likely to be in Indonesian and Philippines waters - pretty crowded and surrounded by islands. Anything further east will be in US dominated waters. Better to operate from local, land bases IMHO
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2021, 23:47
  #536 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,923
Personally - I look at any surface ship these days and all I see is a big, fat, juicy, floating target.
tartare is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 00:23
  #537 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by tartare View Post
Personally - I look at any surface ship these days and all I see is a big, fat, juicy, floating target.
We are screwed then as 90% or so of international trade goes by sea. Or perhaps we could have ships specially designed to detect and fight submarines, and to protect other ships? Maybe some of them could carry helicopters? Multiple helicopters maybe, on a large flight deck...

This is not a carrier thread. Strictly speaking it is just just a submarine one either, but it needs to be pointed out that submarines often work with surface warships, and that the RAN is in the top league of navies in that it can put a viable task group together. However, there are gaps in capabilities, although if the assumption is that they will be alongside the Americans, then that changes things. As far as I know Australia does not have Marines so you have to wonder where the troops to fill two LHDs will come from.




WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 00:30
  #538 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic View Post
As far as I know Australia does not have Marines so you have to wonder where the troops to fill two LHDs will come from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Ba...alian_Regiment, they are the specialist unit, equivilent to a marine raider force. Australia has quietly upgrading its a amphibious forces, they learnt the hard way during timor about how poor they were. Only fortuitous leasing of the HMAS Jervis Bay AKA Dili Express 2 years previous prevented it being a compete cluster ...............

The battalion is planned to generally deploy as the main element of the Australian Amphibious Force's Joint Pre-Landing Force (JPLF).[34][37] It is planned that the 2 RAR elements generally assigned to the Pre-Landing Force (PLF) will be a command and control node, elements from the Reconnaissance and Sniper and Small Boat Platoons, two infantry platoons, a joint fires team and a signals detachment.

or watch this vid goto 6minutes 50


Last edited by rattman; 14th Oct 2021 at 07:20.
rattman is online now  
Old 15th Oct 2021, 06:49
  #539 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Where I hang my hat.
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by rattman View Post
The contract was 2 parts, one was the design and then a construction contract based on the final design. The construction contract has not been signed because there was no detailed design yet

The were to be paid 600 million for the phase 1 contract that covered the design. That was broken into sub phases, a basic design and the detailed design for construction. If australia cancelled the contract after the basic design, NG get 200 mill for contract cancellation, if after detailed design they get 400 million,
So that sounds like a staged contract, each part signed as the preceding one is completed,
The Frogs were 'expecting' the contract to honoured in it's entirety when that's not the case.
Also, wasn't everything in French and had to be rewritten to English, and it was appearing they were going to build more of it offshore than agreed to.
Matt48 is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2021, 07:10
  #540 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Where I hang my hat.
Posts: 133
"I'm afraid you will not escape so easily from the bill."

Just stick it on the account mate, you know, the one from WW1 & 2. ....
Matt48 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.