Australia has been a target for nuclear strikes ever since it set up Pine Gap.
That facility is the NSA's eyes and ears on the whole of Asia - uplinking and downlinking to and from US SIGINT and IMINT birds, and Australia's own SIGINT bird that is part of the constellation.
Pine Gap will have played a critical role in the withdrawal from Afghanistan - anyone else wonder why a USAF C-17 made a trip from Guam down here at the height of those festivities?
And should war break out in the South China sea and nukes start being lobbed around - betcha it'll be one of the first places that disappears in a fireball.
Gao's assertion Australia is not already targeted is bull!!!!.
Interestingly, if a senior commentator with very good guangxi at highest levels in the CCP is prepared to speak and behave in such a way in public, imagine what is being said in private?
Even filtering out the usual Chinese propensity for Peking Opera rage and bluster - in my view the tenor of his comments absolutely underline the necessity for Australia to acquire these submarines, and further weapons.

You do understand the difference between weapons and propulsion systems don’t you ?
Thanks to the likes of Adam Bandt et al I can see this debate getting very silly very quickly.
A Chernobyl in every city ? Really ?

Because the YBAS flight is so regular you might aswell call it RPT?

Last time they tried that, it got a bit messy I seem to recall.
And they had to back down.
Ultimately cost Nikita Sergeyevich his job too...

I would expect there'll be a request to purchase B21 Long Range Bombers. Australia has been without an effective strike capability since the F-111 was retired.

Just a query, I believe one of the likely subs that Australia will choose to acquire will be the US Virginia Class which is an SSBN. As far as I'm aware, SSN means Sub Surface Nuclear (Nuclear referring to the propulsion), SSBN is the same but carries Ballistic Missiles - hence Sub Surface Ballistic Nuclear - in both instances 'Nuclear' is referring to the power-plant, not what is on the tips of the missiles. Ballistic Missiles can carry conventional warheads and if we get what is essentially a Virginia Class, it will have a Virtical Launch System, hard to imagine Australia not taking advantage of that capability and putting conventional BMs on it (or having the option in future).

Personally, I think the nuclear subs are a good move, I think we should arm them with nuclear missiles however. I mean, if you're going to have a deterrent, may as well have a real one.

Time will tell and England, and its government, are fast becoming unstable.

I agree.
Ideal jet for Australia.
And both platforms are special weapons capable.
Which Hugh White says needs to be part of the discussion - his report is very interesting reading.
The Australian public is hopelessly naive in my view - I am in favour of a full nuclear deterrent.

Virginia class boats are not SSBNs they are SSN - Attack Subs. The forthcoming Columbia Class are SSBNs.

No, the Virginia class are hunter-killer SSNs, the USN current SBNs are the Ohio class.

Early block Virginia class boats had 12 vertical launch tubes for conventional tomahawk cruise missiles. The block 3 boats replaced these with larger vertical payload (VLP) tubes able to carry up to 7 tomahawk or other payloads such as SF UAVs for infiltration etc. From from 2025 onwards 9 of the last block will be stretched versions including a VPM module containing another 4 VLPs, increasing their conventional firepower

This isn’t an innovation - the USN has 4 SSGN boats (modified Ohio class) do the same job, but those will, presumably, be retired at the same time as the SBN boats are replaced boats are being retired and replaced by the Columbia class from 2029 onwards.

The USN do not currently have a nuclear cruise missile, so no possibility of the new boats carrying nuclear weapons.

The USN are developing a new nuclear cruise missile, to enter service in about a decade. At which point they will be able to deploy them on their block 3-5 Virginia class boats if they wish.

Whether Australia will buy Virginia class boats and whether they would have any VLP/VLM is something I am sure will be a matter for discussion - but of course cruise missiles can be fired from conventional torpedo tubes, as the RN has amply demonstrated, so the point is moot except for regards the total number able to be carried.

In the meantime there has currently been no suggestion of Australia considering acquiring nuclear weapons.

http://submarinesuppliers.org/wp-con...ia-Payload.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-c...GN_conversions

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland if you please....Great Britain consisting of Scotland, Wales and England. It is like talking about Catalonia, when you meant Spain or British Airways, when you mean IAG. :E

Anyway, according to sleepy joe, the US has no closer ally than Australia.........Really?...I mean, really?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ter-aukus-pact

Wales is stable, Scotland is stable, England & N Ireland are not stable

Can't see Australia buying B21's (even if they are for sale which I really doubt) - the cost will be extreme with no chance of offsets

Might have something to do with this!

https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...arnett-formula

First, there’s no transfer/purchase of nuclear weapons.

Giving/selling to them presumes that Russia believes the Cubans and Venezuelans are technically savvy, competent, reliable along with a whole host of other attributes needed to successfully manage the weapons. It’s not in Russia’s best interests to have client states with nukes if they can’t properly manage them.

Getting to the stage where we might need a new thread just for ramifications for NATO….

https://www.eurointelligence.com/col...y-anglo-saxons

Snookered by Anglo-Saxons

The Europeans have misread Biden and misjudged Johnson. A bad combination

The withdrawal of an ambassador is the attempt to react to a 21st century strategic shift with 19th century diplomacy. Huffing and puffing achieves nothing. But France is right in one specific respect. The Aukus nuclear submarine alliance between the US, Australia and the UK will have lasting implications for Nato. Nato won’t be disbanded, but it will play a more peripheral role in the future.…..

Over time, I would expect Nato to wither, and the transatlantic link to weaken. The EU talks about strategic autonomy, but underestimates the size and, more importantly, the nature of the task. That would require a federal political union, with a federal foreign policy and European defence force, both independent of member states. To fund it, such a federal union would require tax raising and debt issuing powers.

The UK’s inevitable strategic realignment is making that task even harder because the UK used to play a critical part in European security, one that Germany will not fill.

The adult version of strategic autonomy is a very serious undertaking, for which the EU is not equipped. The collective failure to understand Biden’s foreign policy and the need for an alliance with the UK is telling us that the venture has no hope of succeeding.

Wolfgang Münchau is co-founder and director of Eurointelligence. He writes a weekly column on European affairs, syndicated to El Pais, Corriere della Sera and Handelsblatt.

Argentina has been trying to buy modern subs (and multirole fighter jets) for many years, but France has always vetoed sales to them out of loyalty to their "ally" the UK...

Argentina has tried to buy fighters off of many countries over the past 40 years. What’s stopped them isn’t a French veto - it’s that they don’t have any money…

The very day AUKUS was announced, French naval shipyards got a letter in the morning from the Australian government, stating that everything was fine and that they were happy with the process, ready to move forward to the next step. If that's not duplicity, tell me what it is.
This letter does exist, and will be published quite soon.
Brace for it.

Feeling the uncertain ground, now the Anglo-Saxons resort to jokes and pleasant words like "give my a break" "we understand your frustration".... "it's already behing us"

Anyway, we will all have white beards when the first Aussie SSN sails out of Darwin or anywhere else. Will be probably a second-hand USN something, with a sealed nuclear compartment under US control, and a bunch of crew with double passports, as it so commonly happens. But if it does suit them, who cares after all ?

Just for information, the day after AUKUS was announced, the Australian technicians and families in France were already packing their stuff, ready to leave - as in the Anglo-Saxon world, you can get banned immediately from your office and a company the day you are no longer needed. Nothing like that in Cherbourg - they were told by the management that they had French contracts, and that therefore they were still welcome and that a solution was going to be found for them - probably remaining Naval Group employees, in Cherbourg or somewhere else. A sharp contrast to the treatment they are getting from their own government....

For those expressing their unhappiness about French "colonialism " in the Pacific, I suggest they dig a little bit more in their Aborigin and Maori history...

When flying to Auckland, a regional F/O told me that he had been to Noumea once, and that great, "it was looking like France"
Therefore it was my pleasure to say "yes, of course, because IT IS France" - like it or not.

And suddely India is very interested in French SSN - so strange - to complement their current squadron of French-made Scorpene classic subs.
Why not, there is more potential, future and brain in 1/20 of India than in the whole Oz. And everybody knows that.

By the way, I flew Jaguars in the RAF. Your move.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0cb9d7919f.jpg
Fifth "Scorpene" for Indian Navy. Who needs Oz ?

Good luck with that….

No one was expressing unhappiness, just pointing out that decolonisation in the Pacific has been a US policy since before WWII, and they don’t regard places such as New Caledonia integral parts of France, even if France does.

Interestingly neither do the local inhabitants it seems. I would be interested to hear what the Vrench secret services and others are doing to persuade the people otherwise….

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/11/97527...in-the-pacific

Whatever, it is merely to point out the USA doesn’t see France as a major player in the region - or at least not one on their side because of their different policy on China.


So why so upset at possibly* losing a contract?

* No contract yet cancelled as far as I know, though future follow-on phases may not be signed or implemented.