AUKUS
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
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
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.
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.
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 hangar medivac 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
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 hangar medivac 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
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.
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
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Happy Bottom Riding Club
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There’s 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 China’s 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 SSN’s, built with US and UK know how operating in their back yard.
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
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.
Just saying...
WEBF - not everyone needs or wants aircraft carriers
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...
Just saying...
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
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.
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 08:20.
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,
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,
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.
"So after Kevin Rudd, it seems now Malcolm Turnbull considers that France has been deliberately and unelegantly betrayed.
That makes two ex-Australian PM against one - but for some reasons, it seems commentators here do prefer the N° 3, Scott Morrison (why ? no idea - that's internal Aussie politics, and I don't really care)"
That's two blowhard narcissists that were binned before they even served one term, it's a wonder you haven't mentioned that francophile clock collector Keating.
And yes, you do care, you are weeping into your croussants all the time.
That makes two ex-Australian PM against one - but for some reasons, it seems commentators here do prefer the N° 3, Scott Morrison (why ? no idea - that's internal Aussie politics, and I don't really care)"
That's two blowhard narcissists that were binned before they even served one term, it's a wonder you haven't mentioned that francophile clock collector Keating.
And yes, you do care, you are weeping into your croussants all the time.
Also good vid on the whole saga
