AUKUS

[kranky al]

AUKUS remains the huge elephant in the room in relation to Australia's defence capabilities and spending. It's sucking the life out of our nation's capacity to undertake immediate steps to improve our short and medium term ability to defend ourselves at a time of rising tensions in our part of the world.

And yet it continues to get f-all attention.

Thing is - you can take every single one of those things - put them together.

But the thing that scares an aircraft carrier and a troopship carrier the most

Is a submarine.


You can have a screening force around an invasion fleet that can literally track the birds flying around them for hundreds of km.

Yet submarines regularly get through carrier group defences and score “kills” in exercise after exercise.

 

[Festerz]

Thing is - you can take every single one of those things - put them together.

But the thing that scares an aircraft carrier and a troopship carrier the most

Is a submarine.


You can have a screening force around an invasion fleet that can literally track the birds flying around them for hundreds of km.

Yet submarines regularly get through carrier group defences and score “kills” in exercise after exercise.

The post I linked is from someone who has served as an officer on both conventional Australian and nuclear US submarines.

He knows a thing or two about submarines I think and has been one of the most vocal opponents of the hastily announced AUKUS deal and the acquisition of large nuclear submarines that won't be in service, if at all, for decades.

His criticism is not of submarines but how the costly short-sighted blundering of successive Australian governments have left us without any modern effective submarine deterrent until (at least) 2040 - and even then we will not have the required manpower to crew them given already critical shortages in submariners and specialist technicians and engineers across the defence force.

Meanwhile billions of dollars are being sucked out of current and future defence force budgets to fund them.

 

[QuietB]

Thing is - you can take every single one of those things - put them together.

But the thing that scares an aircraft carrier and a troopship carrier the most

Is a submarine.


You can have a screening force around an invasion fleet that can literally track the birds flying around them for hundreds of km.

Yet submarines regularly get through carrier group defences and score “kills” in exercise after exercise.

In 20-25 years time there will be a myriad of cheap weapons that will be able to kill an aircraft carrier and troopship. The USA are already petrified and make sure their carriers are well out of harms way any time things flare up. A

And the entire premise of needing these weapons is based on China even bothering to send a troopship which frankly is very very unlikely.

I just don't get the strategy. But then Scott Morrison came up with it so I guess it is not meant to make sense. It has served his personal ambition well - colour me surprised

 

[kranky al]

In 20-25 years time there will be a myriad of cheap weapons that will be able to kill an aircraft carrier and troopship. The USA are already petrified and make sure their carriers are well out of harms way any time things flare up. A

And the entire premise of needing these weapons is based on China even bothering to send a troopship which frankly is very very unlikely.

I just don't get the strategy. But then Scott Morrison came up with it so I guess it is not meant to make sense. It has served his personal ambition well - colour me surprised

There is also a myriad of counter measures.

As I mentioned - carrier captains aren’t scared of air threats

They are shit scared of underwater threats.

 

[kranky al]

The post I linked is from someone who has served as an officer on both conventional Australian and nuclear US submarines.

He knows a thing or two about submarines I think and has been one of the most vocal opponents of the hastily announced AUKUS deal and the acquisition of large nuclear submarines that won't be in service, if at all, for decades.

His criticism is not of submarines but how the costly short-sighted blundering of successive Australian governments have left us without any modern effective submarine deterrent until (at least) 2040 - and even then we will not have the required manpower to crew them given already critical shortages in submariners and specialist technicians and engineers across the defence force.

Meanwhile billions of dollars are being sucked out of current and future defence force budgets to fund them.

I don’t get why weve funked around so much either.

I get furious when I look at the money we waste over and over and over again buying shitty products when battle proven US gear is available off the shelf.

 

[Rob R]

AUKUS remains the huge elephant in the room in relation to Australia's defence capabilities and spending. It's sucking the life out of our nation's capacity to undertake immediate steps to improve our short and medium term ability to defend ourselves at a time of rising tensions in our part of the world.

And yet it continues to get f-all attention.

Rex Patrick is a pretty smart operator that we need in the senate but that graph is pretty misleading comparing whole of life cycle costs of subs versus only the acquisition cost of the other systems.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Rob R]

I don’t get why weve funked around so much either.

I get furious when I look at the money we waste over and over and over again buying shitty products when battle proven US gear is available off the shelf.

Something crooked happened when all of a sudden defence started buying crap French choppers the army didn't want, a French regulatory system that is bureaucracy heavy, French subs that didn't exist and would never meet needs, dud French torpedoes - all of them decided by Canberracrats who wouldn't even know what a weapon system looks like.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[barreness]

Stuff it eh. AUG, RPG, and a Hilux for every family, we've already got most of the factories and it's worked before, low tech baby

Few tunnels for air defense, job done
Oil could be an issue, hydrogen/electric/biodiesel I suppose

 

[kranky al]

Rex Patrick is a pretty smart operator that we need in the senate but that graph is pretty misleading comparing whole of life cycle costs of subs versus only the acquisition cost of the other systems.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Especially as fuel isn’t an issue with the nucs and fuel is a huge expense with a lot of the alternatives.

Stuff it eh. AUG, RPG, and a Hilux for every family, we've already got most of the factories and it's worked before, low tech baby

Few tunnels for air defense, job done
Oil could be an issue, hydrogen/electric/biodiesel I suppose

if we are going down that route stamped metal kalashnikovs are the gold standard and de rigeuer for insurgencies.

 

[Hamingja]

Drones and grenades for every household

 

[kranky al]

Drones and grenades for every household

You get a drone and you get a drone, everyone gets a drone

Not you scomo you funking spaz - you get crayons

 

[nut]

I don’t get why weve funked around so much either.

I get furious when I look at the money we waste over and over and over again buying shitty products when battle proven US gear is available off the shelf.

It’s almost like we are funneling money to the US?

 

[Rob R]

It’s almost like we are funneling money to the US?

Except we are buying junk from other countries like the Hunters that any sensible government would scrap immediately instead of cheaper, ready, low risk, more capable Arleigh Burke's and Constellation class - just because some lobbyist spun lies about jobs in marginal electorates and our pollies and canberracrats wanted European junkets.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[peetoo]

Except we are buying junk from other countries like the Hunters that any sensible government would scrap immediately instead of cheaper, ready, low risk, more capable Arleigh Burke's and Constellation class - just because some lobbyist spun lies about jobs in marginal electorates and our pollies and canberracrats wanted European junkets.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

One reason I heard was to protect our fuel supply. Are we in the 1700s?

Jobs pretend building subs or jobs running our fuel energy supply chain meaning self sufficiency?

As we approach 50-60 million population, self sufficiency should be the catch cry for our times

 

[Rob R]

One reason I heard was to protect our fuel supply. Are we in the 1700s?

Jobs pretend building subs or jobs running our fuel energy supply chain meaning self sufficiency?

As we approach 50-60 million population, self sufficiency should be the catch cry for our times

We need energy self sufficiency now 100% and in the future, even if some government decides to stop the immigration ponzi scheme and our population stabilises at a sensible level in the low 30 millions.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[kranky al]

It’s almost like we are funneling money to the US?

Errr

The biggest funk up projects have all gone to Europe based companies when off the shelf, cheaper battle proven products were available from the us.


Eg :


Taipan - eu Blackhawk available from us
Tiger - eu Apache available from us

 

[kranky al]

Oh and for the China are benign crew:

Chinese fishing vessels are going scorched earth and pumping cyanide into contested waters, Philippine fishing authority says

The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources on Saturday accused Chinese fishermen of trying to "intentionally destroy" Scarborough Shoal.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[peetoo]

We need energy self sufficiency now 100% and in the future, even if some government decides to stop the immigration ponzi scheme and our population stabilises at a sensible level in the low 30 millions.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

It will be easier to justify with 50-60 million. Our economy will stand alone then

 

[barreness]

Oh and for the China are benign crew:

Chinese fishing vessels are going scorched earth and pumping cyanide into contested waters, Philippine fishing authority says

The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources on Saturday accused Chinese fishermen of trying to "intentionally destroy" Scarborough Shoal.

www.businessinsider.com

hmmmmmmmmm, beat up?

But the Philippine coast guard on Sunday said it hadn't found any evidence of Chinese fishermen using cyanide and couldn't confirm the fisheries bureau's accusation.

"We don't have any scientific study or any evidence that would suggest that cyanide fishing in Bajo de Masinloc can be attributed to the Chinese or the Vietnamese fishermen," GMA News quoted a coast-guard spokesperson, Commodore Jay Tarriela, as saying.

The Philippines' fishing industry was known to use cyanide fishing back in the 1960s to capture live fish for aquariums and restaurants, though the practice has become less common. In 2023, a study from the Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation in Cebu, the Philippines, found that some Filipino fishermen still used cyanide in the South China Sea.

Not that overfishing isn't a huge problem and the Chinese are some of the worst

 

[QuietB]

It’s almost like we are funneling money to the US?

Morrison just got a job lobbying with a defence company associated with Mike Pompeo - I’m sure the AUKUS deal will serve him well.

 

[Festerz]

Let's get real. We are never going to get nuclear attack class subs from the US.

And even if we did they will come with a huge maintenance and repair bill into the future that we could never afford. Let alone have the required workforce to man them.

The lack of legitimate independent scrutiny on this $380 billion (and rising) deal announced in the middle of the night by a PM as part of a pre-election campaign wedge that failed is a bloody disgrace

 

[Rob R]

Let's get real. We are never going to get nuclear attack class subs from the US.

And even if we did they will come with a huge maintenance and repair bill into the future that we could never afford. Let alone have the required workforce to man them.

The lack of legitimate independent scrutiny on this $380 billion (and rising) deal announced in the middle of the night by a PM as part of a pre-election campaign wedge that failed is a bloody disgrace

Not sure of the relevance of Boise to our repair costs given she has been in service for 30 years and part of a class that is 60 years old and, fired significant number of missiles The 8 year repair was due to congestion in the docks that we won't be using.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[QuietB]

I honestly believe that the whole thing will just keep getting kicked down the road like all defence projects.

The politics is about the announcement. No one actually cares about delivery.

 

[nut]

I honestly believe that the whole thing will just keep getting kicked down the road like all defence projects.

The politics is about the announcement. No one actually cares about delivery.

It’s about washing tax payer money into the endless wars.

 

[kranky al]

MSN

www.msn.com

As most of you who follow this thread know, I’m quite hawkish on defence issues despite being a centre left with the rest of my politics. I’ve been outspoken in my beliefs that the nuclear subs are the right thing for us.

Saw this article this morning, essentially the uk built two big fancy carriers - they don’t even have a complete carrier group to protect one of them, so the dogma has been that one is sailing, one is in refurb / downtime (whatever you pussers call it)

Now they are saying there is not enough funding for both and that they are looking at flogging one off to …. Hmmmm who would we like to grab it…. Ah the Aussies, those cub’s are just the ticket. They don’t lose too much face as let’s face it, they are family - we can legit share the resource and the expenses without bankrupting either of us and between both navies can provide an adequate carrier group.

Now id be lying if I said i wouldnt love this, its a carrier and its easily the best non seppo carrier in the world. It’s a real point of pride, it’s a big boys toy and it shows that we can blah blah blah ……Collective national ego trip etc.



Should we do it?

FUNK NO!!!

As much as I’d love to have a fleet air arm again and bemoan the loss of our old fleet air arm (and my subsequent decision to go army not navy pilot) when the nasty argentoolians showed England that selling us invincible was a daft idea for a nation that has a colonial past and far flung remnants of empire.

The facts are that carriers are for force projection. Carriers are there so you can take your navy and troop carriers over to the other side of the globe and demand that people with funny accents do what you say or else. Or don’t worry about saying anything, just take their shit and call them sooky lalas.

We have zero need for this, if we are going to be a part of that it will be under the auspices of Uncle Sam and they have all those toys, we don’t need them. If however Uncle Sam is cut down with old age or not available due to orange… or whatever, a carrier is just going to complicate things for our navy - especially given that basically every naval asset we have would have to surround it in an interlocking defence INCLUDING the AUKUS subs, which kinda defeats the purpose of them. If we are ever threatened with invasion / blockade - I want the AUKUS subs out harassing the enemy convoy not sitting around our carrier playing defence.

Thoughts?