Aussie Nukes

[onetrack]

That photo simply cries out for a caption. Something like ScoMo saying "Suck it up, Chump!", to match ScoMo's expression.

 

By the same token, Macron is intent on ruling this neck of the woods with a massive French influence expansion. The submarine deal getting canned has put a huge crimp in that expansion plan.

Like it or not, the S.E. Asian/Oceania region is the area where all the superpowers are now intent on getting domination, to counteract China's dominance.

[willedoo]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

The "Hands on" approach can do miracles

I think he spends most of his days with his hand on it.

[Old Koreelah]

This longish video gives more info about our subs than anything I’ve previously seen and explains how the Collins class has turned out to be an excellent boat.

It also explains why we need to build them here; well worth the time.

 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

One of the fathers of a girl in my daughter's year is a senior Royal Navy officer. I saw him today for the first time since the pandemic and joked that "I hear our government is buying a couple of used vanguard class submarines from your government."

 

He laughed a bit, and shook his head and muttered something, without going into any detail, I may add, that it has caused quite a problem for him..

 

Curiosity is killing me.,  Wished I had never mentioned it in the first place.

[Old Koreelah]

12 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

One of the fathers of a girl in my daughter's year is a senior Royal Navy officer. I saw him today for the first time since the pandemic and joked that "I hear our government is buying a couple of used vanguard class submarines from your government."

 

He laughed a bit, and shook his head and muttered something, without going into any detail, I may add, that it has caused quite a problem for him..

Throughout history, the main problems for defence personnel have come from their political masters.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Aussie needs nukes? In the current geopolitical climate? Yes..

[Yenn]

China is throwing clog in the works at the moment by questioning if Australia is breaking the nuclear non proliferation act, by getting nuclear fuel in the subs it is supposedly getting under AUCUS.

i think they have a good question, we may well be doing the wrong thing, as we may have been doing when we sported the fuel.

[Old Koreelah]

The cost to humanity of the Arms Race is humungous, but we do get some new technology as a by-product. DARPA has tossed money at lots of outlandish research, some of which has born fruit. This one is intriguing:

 

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220616-the-new-sonar-built-from-sealife-noises

[willedoo]

After Paul Keating gave almost everyone a spray over the subs deal, a Sky journo suggested Keating (aged 79) was past it on current geopolitical matters. They regularly champion the views of Howard (83), Trump (76), and their boss Rupert is 92.

[Old Koreelah]

28 minutes ago, willedoo said:

After Paul Keating gave almost everyone a spray over the subs deal, a Sky journo suggested Keating (aged 79) was past it on current geopolitical matters. They regularly champion the views of Howard (83), Trump (76), and their boss Rupert is 92.

Why waste time on anything coming from the evil empire? It’s not likely to be true.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Here's what I would do, and it would cost very little compared with the subs deal.

I. get Jabirus to design and build a thousand drone-type special Jabs. Really long -range drones, but only one-way things. Perhaps with diesel engines, I dunno if a standard ignition system is vulnerable to an EMT hit.

2. get up non-electronic inertial guidance systems and fit them to the Jabiru drones.

3. make up a thousand dirty bombs and put one in each Jab drone. No electronic components anywhere.

 

After having these things, we could get rid of a lot of other expensive military things. Then we start making real nukes from our plentiful uranium supplies. Sent off to say China, and sea-hugging all the way, the few that got through would sure muck up any victory parade. In fact, I reckon we would be as safe as possible from being attacked to begin with.

 How could any defence be sure to shoot down all those drones? 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

That should have read EMP for electromagnetic pulse. My understanding is that anything electrical can be buggered up by a nuclear bomb. So I would expect a diesel engine to be unaffected, similarly inertial nav hardware.

[onetrack]

Just back to Keating for a second - he quotes the subs deal, as the "“worst deal in all history”.

 

No Paul - the "worst deal in all history" is when YOU oversaw the sale of the Commonwealth Bank to the big private banks, so they could rort all of Australia unfettered by the handbrake of the Govt-owned Commonwealth Bank. 

You shafted every Australian by allowing unfettered private bank greed for centuries to come - the exact thing the Commonwealth Bank was set up to combat. King O'Malley isn't just rolling in his grave, he's spinning in it.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Although Hawke and Keating were the better combination of leaders I can recall, they both were economic rationalists - sort of Thatcherites. Even Blair and Brown (which was almost like watching a later Hawke and Keating show) were also economic rationalists... which sort of flies in the face of the Labour movement which underpins both Labor and Labour.  Blair was, after his premiership, quoted as being a proud Thatcherite.. By then end of his term, he was ubiquitously hated in the Labour party. But they have not won an election since.,

 

It is easy for ex-PMs to become benevolent after their term; they don't have to answer to anyone, keep the fractious party factions in line, deal with lobbyists, etc.  Just look at the difference in public life of the late Malcolm Fraser compared to his life as a PM. Gordon Brown, up until Lizz Truss, was probably the most disliked PM (he never won an election) in Britain, but afterwards is revered for his public comments on all matters from economics to social justice - positions he never adopted, or probably could not adopt when he was Treasurer and then PM after the downfall of Blair.  As Treasurer, he famously sold around half of the country's gold reserves in one of the most depressed markets: https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/gold-news/2019/may/07/worst-deal-uk-history-20-years-brown-sold-britains-gold/#:~:text=In 1999%2C Chancellor Gordon Brown,would generate much better returns.

 

I agree - the worst decision of Keating was to sell the CBA. There is little evidence to suggest the CBA would have performed worse in government hands. In fact, as it was 100% government backed, it could have probably been better placed to take the upswing and weather the downside.

 

However, let's not forget - all Aussie banks - well the major ones - as far as I can tell were quite solid during the GFC. 

[red750]

This is an email sent to me by a friend who sends me lots of similar stuff.

    Our fancy subs will be obsolete

David Livingstone

Submarines are useful in war because of their stealth. But soon much cheaper technology will readily detect them.

 

With the submarine announcement, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese committed Australia to a project that started as a thought bubble from his predecessor, Scott Morrison, whose only decision fully supported by his own party was that he stand down as leader. That is an unfortunate pedigree and the submarine decision lives up to it.

 

Manned submarines are nearing the end of their utility in hostile waters because of developments in smart sea mines, unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and underwater sensors. China has made a strong start on this, and will deploy them in large numbers on its coast and in the South China Sea and East China Sea.

 

Australia plans to buy at least three American Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines while it proceeds to build its SSN-AUKUS subs. The acoustic signature of the Virginia-class is known to China. It will be programmed into China’s defensive/offensive capabilities, which are cheap counters to an extremely expensive submarine, one that carries 132 increasingly vulnerable sailors.

 

By the time Australia gets these submarines from the US in the 2030s, it will be simply too dangerous to deploy them to contested areas that could take advantage of their performance and firepower. They will be restricted to home or benign waters, undercutting their main justification. Russia has already shown this to be true in the air. Its air force rarely ventures into contested territory, preferring to fire missiles from a distance. That is the future of underwater warfare.

 

As for the nuclear-powered submarines to be built in South Australia, the ambitious schedule is to deliver the first by the early 2040s. By the 2050s, however, it would be surprising if there will be any place for manned submarines at all. The oceans are becoming transparent with the development of new sensors. Cheap, ubiquitous smart sea mines, sensors and UUVs will render them obsolete.

 

The submarine decision is not strong or tough on China. It is dumb on China by the very people who talk up the threat it poses.

 

China is complaining about the submarine announcement as it attempts to foster support among developing countries, but Beijing will be secretly laughing all the way to the UUV factory. It will not have escaped China’s attention that production of Virginia-class submarines is already under pressure to meet US Navy requirements of two a year. Increasing production output is expensive and difficult. The boats Australia gets will probably not add to the total number of submarines deployed against China.

 

Even non-military justifications of jobs and capability-building are hollow. The industry developed in support of the submarines will be narrow and focused on existing technologies, offering limited if any benefits or export potential.

 

And the tragedy is exacerbated by the realisation that the submarines deal, possibly priced at about $368 billion, constitutes the biggest transfer of wealth from Australia to another country in its history. You have to go back to times of colonial exploitation to discover an arrangement so uneven. And, ironically, it is the result of Australia pleading for it.

 

This project condemns the Australian taxpayer to the life of the mythical Sisyphus, sentenced to push a boulder up a mountain for eternity. The taxpayer will have to fill ever-growing defence buckets for generations to come. More and more money for a project that will deliver less and less benefit. Cruel indeed.

 

The colossal expense means that long-term, meaningful defence capabilities will be foregone and Australia will be less secure for it.

 

Australia should instead be intimidating in defence of its territory and be capable of acting decisively in concert with others to defend common interests, including the US. It starts with Australia securing its region with further investment in the JORN over-thehorizon radar; acquiring great quantities of smart sea mines to protect Australia’s coastal cities and the approaches to its ports; buying more fighter aircraft to dominate the sea and air gap to Australia’s north; purchasing new, off-the-shelf conventionally powered submarines to make the narrow straits and choke points to Australia’s north impassable to hostile navies; acquiring more drones and UUVs; bolstering special forces and light infantry that can be deployed quickly to disrupt and destroy enemy capabilities; and stockpiling missiles to protect cities and bases and devastate an enemy at range.

 

All of this at a fraction of the cost of the nuclear-powered submarines.

 

Two things can support this effort. The first is to invest heavily in world-leading research and development, including artificial intelligence and machine-learning, quantum computing, cryptography, communications and sensors, and stealth coatings and smart materials. Australia, with growing capabilities in stealth technologies, should approach Turkey, a world leader in the production of military drones, to conduct joint research.

 

Next, work with countries of the region. Indonesia, a tech-savvy, appenabled country, has much to offer. Building patterns of co-operation can lead to trust to act in concert against an outside power that might seek to impose its will. Australia can be a valuable member of South-East Asia’s security community. It needs to re-establish itself as the partner of choice among Pacific nations.

 

The prudent planning of defence preparation requires genuine intellectual rigour. Instead, all that is evident in the submarine announcement is intellectual rigor mortis and the realisation of an idea of a former PM more famous for marketing than substance.

 

David Livingstone is a former Australian diplomat and an international security and strategy specialist. He served as deputy head of mission in Iraq between 2011 and 2012.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I have to admit, the cost is eyewatering, except it is $368bn over a 30 year period, which makes it slightly north of $12bn/year., which is not that bad.. Of course, that excludes maintenance and operations... 

 

But, I agree with the sentiment; warfare is changing and let's not forget, Australia is really hard to invade successfully. Maybe Indonesia has a good chance, but the supply logistics for China and other countries so far away would make it a difficult endeavour to say the least.   

 

The war in Ukraine highlights the importance of unmanned vehicles, including the water vessel that blew up the Crimean bridge. 

 

Michael West Media released a story and one of the things he says, which rings true is that it is a transfer of sovereignty. I can't help but think there are some large brown paper bags flowing around - not implying Albanese is caught up in it, nor even Morrison, but someone is. 

 

That large an investment could probably spawn many home grown industries that could plug our defence and other industry gaps. There is no reason that Australia cannot do a lot more by itself. Let's not forget, unless we are being blatantly lied to, these are nuclear powered submarines - they are not armed with nuclear weapons such as the Tridents.  

 

 

 

[red750]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Of course, that excludes maintenance and operations... 

and interest.

[facthunter]

I thought it was HOWARD who privatised Combank. Keating "floated" the currency.  Nev

[onetrack]

From Wikipedia ....

 

Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1991–1996)[edit]

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), often referred to as the People's Bank, was privatised in three stages, commencing from 1991 to 1996, by Treasurer Paul Keating, representing one of the earliest privatisation projects in Australia.^[35] It was initiated due to the burden of government investment to ensure the viability of the Bank, which was "a net cost to the taxpayer".^[36] The profits accumulated from the sale of Commonwealth Bank equated to over $7 billion by 1996.^[37] In recent years, the CBA has become one of the most profitable banks in Australia, with strong financial performance and a 10% growth in dividends annually.^[38] This policy was considered sensible by economists at the time, due to the competitive environment which CBA was operating in, rendering it inefficient.^[39]

 

Of course, all those economists who advised on the sale of that "useless" Commonwealth Bank, were all trained and formerly employed by the big private banks .....

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by onetrack

[red750]

Australia makes $1.3 billion missile purchase

 

On Friday, Defence Minister Richard Marles confirmed Australia is also set to acquire hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles from the United States as part of the AUKUS security pact.

 

"It's a really important part of what we need to be doing with our posture, which is to have a greater ability to project," he told Nine's Today program about the $1.3 billion purchase.

 

"Making sure we have longer-range strike missiles is a really important capability for the country. It enables us to be able to reach out beyond our shores further and that's ultimately how we are able to keep Australia safe."

[Jerry_Atrick]

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

I thought it was HOWARD who privatised Combank. Keating "floated" the currency.  Nev

Howard privatised Telecom Australia (as it was known at the time - now Telstra)

[red750]

Stephen Conroys response to Paul Keatings attack on AUKUS and Penny Wong.

 

See video here.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I agree.. he was bang out of order... Anbd I think Conroy was quite right - Keating doesn't receive the security briefings anymore.

 

In fact, Conroy's retort made me think the Doomsday clock isn't about climate annihilation, but about WW3 annihilation. This is shaping up about a battle between east and west; good v bad; democracy v autocracy.

 

I need a drink.. Jacob has come around this eve.

 

Time to watch the footy (y'know - the real one from down south)  😉

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[onetrack]

Keating has always been soft on China. His claims that China has never threatened us doesn't jell with their military chiefs threats, and the constant Chinese attempts to impose their will on us, with trade embargoes (lobster, wine, coal, etc).

 

China does pose a threat to us, not only because of the sheer numbers of Chinese, but because they are cunning and devious control freaks.

 

When they realised they'd stuffed up with Australian lobster imports, they bought all our lobster processing facilities. When they kicked themselves in the nuts with the bans on Australian coal (which only sent the the price of coal soaring), they quietly dropped the coal sanctions.

 

The Chinese have steadily bought up vast amounts of mineral processing facilities and mines and ore reserves, until today they almost totally control the worlds production of zinc, they own and control most of the mineral output of Africa - and they have control of 40% of the worlds copper, 59% of the worlds lithium, and 73% of the worlds cobalt. They almost totally control the worlds supply of rare earth elements.

 

China's cunning long-term plan is to ensure that they control all the minerals critical to the New Electric Era. The Americans have only just woken up to the fact that they've ignored Africa as a major mineral province and source of cheap ores and minerals for far too long. But they're 20 years too late.

 

I don't have any problem with ensuring we kick China in the nuts on a regular basis, and I believe we have already allowed too much Chinese ownership and investment in Australia, with lax controls over what they own, and what they do with it. They've wrecked our property market by excessive property investment, especially in Sydney.

 

Australians and Australian companies would be completely unable to acquire the same level of investment in Chinese property and businesses in China, as we have given them here.

Paul Keating is a has-been - like so many ex-PM's, they suffer from "relevance-deprivation" syndrome, and like to think they still play a large part in controlling the direction of the nation.

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by onetrack

[facthunter]

Keating is only News Candy for the "Daily HATE", Newscorpse lot. He's always been a stirrer, calling the Senate "Unrepresentative SWILL". There's no point to doing the' tough guy" hunky ' provocative stance of Scotty from marketing as it just feeds the state controlled media in China. Likewise the "Wolf Warrior" Chinese thrust was counter productive to China-Australia  interests..  Nev