Aussie politics thread (2)

 
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

An incredibly rare juncture where I agree with you: The US has an obligation under ANZUS to sell us whatever we need. A couple of second-hand nuclear submarines at a fraction of the cost of the Attack Class units would suffice.


No quite correct. The US is not obliged to sell us anything that we need under ANZUS. A recent example is the F22 raptor. They were in the mix for planning. Apart from the challenges to maintain them (which is significantly more complex than the F35) and the fact that they are currently only air to air capable presently, the US decided not to sell these to any alliance partners including Australia. Even though our politicians did make noise about this.

The US is not obliged to sell us nuclear capable subs if we wanted them. However if Australia decided to buy nuclear powered subs, I am sure that the US would allow us to buy, so that they can make a sale (to deny other suppliers), not because of any treaty. The real issue is that, if we did decide to go that way, it would be a massive change in terms of sailing subs. the challenge will be if our population will accept that. I doubt it, as we are not willing to have a large scale fission reactor for power, let alone a repository for spent nuclear fuel. How many decades have these issues have been discussed?

Even if there is a miracle and our community wants it, the US will put their interest first. Will enabling Australia to have nuclear capable subs ratchet up a risk of neighbouring countries buying similar equipment from China or Russia, even if they are aligned with the US? That will probably force the US to spend more to have presence to balance any increase in this region. Ironically, I think it does suit the US, that we do not sail nuclear powered subs.

The US is keen to sell us platforms, but there are limitations. Australia does enjoy a superior level of access to the technology over other US partners, but it isn't open ended.
The biggest military ‘thing’ the US have sold to us is Link 11/16 etc.

They might ‘sell’ us a Los Angeles, but they’re getting a little long in the tooth now, Seawolf? Forget it, and the Virginia would likely have to be quite neutered to be available to sale to other nations.

We would be better off buying the actual Barracuda SSN, not the over priced pieces of smeg brought to us by Sean Costello.
Aaron

I would say the F-35 and the Aegis combat system on the Hobarts (and later the Hunters) would be the top tier items the US has been willing to sell. Loads of countries have Link 11/16 integration.

Sponsored advertisement

  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

The F-35 (ordered by the Gillard government for Australia) is proving to be a very expensive and overly-heavy aircraft so the United States is coming up with something cheaper... Forbes Magazine;
don_dunstan
BTW the F-35 has been a bi-partisan supported acquisition. In fact it was the Howard government that signed up to it and cancelled a competitive flyoff for a new jet to replace the old F-18A/B Hornets.

There was no circumstance under which Australia was not going to buy into the F-35.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
To Valvegear’s question on why we need submarines at all???
It’s like the Army having tanks. We have them purely as a deterrent. OR put more simply we have them ONLY because others have them.
Have we deployed them anywhere oversees? NO. But the reason I just told you why we have them makes their non deployed irrelevant.

To the submarines. The Collins class have copped their  share of criticism, more so than the Oberons before them. The new ones and other ships will probably be late and have cost overruns. They might not be the best. However,  IF it’s got a potential adversary having doubts about giving us a whack, then that’s probably worthwhile insurance IMHO.


Regards
davesvline
The US has thousands of nuclear bombs, but doesn't intend to use them unless others use their nuc's against the US.

Its the same argument, you have because other have and yes guess what the others have also suffered cost over runs and delays.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I like Senator Reynolds, unlike some posters here who are happy to sell out Australian jobs to off shore suppliers with inferior proposals or products or in some cases do not even exist for the 25 year sub project, she's working towards a solution that protects a generation of skilled Australian jobs in this project.
We've been through this before: We decided collectively that we wouldn't bother manufacturing complex things in this nation any longer when we let the car industry go. That was decided by both sides of politics some decades ago with the Button Report. How the blazes do you think we'd go at making an incredibly complex and sophisticated piece of military hardware like a submarine here if we can't even build cars?

Short answer is we can't. It's too expensive to replicate existing production lines, contractors and suppliers in this country - that's part of the reason why the contract with Naval is going to be cancelled. Naval were asked a year ago to give a final figure on how much of the actual production was going to be given to local Australian contractors after telling the Commonwealth that 90% local production wasn't possible. They've since dropped that figure to 60% - but now they're saying that this is also too high - which is why ScoMo has ordered a review into the whole contract, because the French aren't adhering to their part of the agreement.

So your fantasy of having local expertise and production is just that: A fantasy. Better to cancel it now rather than find out later that all the components they said would be locally-manufactured are actually fully imported don't you think.
Ever the literalist, our RTT. Let me rephrase - why the hell do we want submarines at all?
It's the protection of the sea lanes to our north that has been repeatedly identified as the strategic need - and submarines come up as the answer.
We should have purchased nuclear submarines of the Yanks. I am sure they would have been happy to supply a few news ones are a couple of second hand ones in the interim.
An incredibly rare juncture where I agree with you: The US has an obligation under ANZUS to sell us whatever we need. A couple of second-hand nuclear submarines at a fraction of the cost of the Attack Class units would suffice.
don_dunstan
We have been through this before, but you still harp on.

Cars are not complex, that's why they are not made here.

Replicate the production line of a submarine? One that's only be made a few times. What sort of production line do you really think there is Don? How many common parts are there Don? Why do you think these things cost billions Don?

Yes Valvegear was incorrect.


No Don, I was quoting you.

The yanks have no obligation to sell us anything and US prohibits them even considering selling some military hardware and technology off shore, especially anything with nuclear technology.

2nd hand subs are good for one thing only,  artificial reefs. They were only retired due to end of life and rising costs or simply outdated technology. The only winner is the seller. Australia has been burnt enough buying 2nd hand rubbish from the US.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
An incredibly rare juncture where I agree with you: The US has an obligation under ANZUS to sell us whatever we need. A couple of second-hand nuclear submarines at a fraction of the cost of the Attack Class units would suffice.


No quite correct. The US is not obliged to sell us anything that we need under ANZUS. A recent example is the F22 raptor. They were in the mix for planning. Apart from the challenges to maintain them (which is significantly more complex than the F35) and the fact that they are currently only air to air capable presently, the US decided not to sell these to any alliance partners including Australia. Even though our politicians did make noise about this.

The US is not obliged to sell us nuclear capable subs if we wanted them. However if Australia decided to buy nuclear powered subs, I am sure that the US would allow us to buy, so that they can make a sale (to deny other suppliers), not because of any treaty. The real issue is that, if we did decide to go that way, it would be a massive change in terms of sailing subs. the challenge will be if our population will accept that. I doubt it, as we are not willing to have a large scale fission reactor for power, let alone a repository for spent nuclear fuel. How many decades have these issues have been discussed?

Even if there is a miracle and our community wants it, the US will put their interest first. Will enabling Australia to have nuclear capable subs ratchet up a risk of neighbouring countries buying similar equipment from China or Russia, even if they are aligned with the US? That will probably force the US to spend more to have presence to balance any increase in this region. Ironically, I think it does suit the US, that we do not sail nuclear powered subs.

The US is keen to sell us platforms, but there are limitations. Australia does enjoy a superior level of access to the technology over other US partners, but it isn't open ended.
Big J
The US does not sell nuclear powered submarine technology, ever, full stop.

Australia may go down the pathway of converting 6 of the final subs to nuclear, but that decision is +10 years away and with it yes comes all the other crap with it.

Before considering the cost of buying a nuclear sub from the US, note their subs are huge compared to ours, perhaps review the price. The Virginia class are US$ 7B a piece, just to buy.

The US will support Australia with its subs, but it will never sell one to us.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

We would be better off buying the actual Barracuda SSN, not the over priced pieces of smeg brought to us by Sean Costello.
Aaron
Which is what we are getting, Shortfin Barracuda
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner


We would be better off buying the actual Barracuda SSN, not the over priced pieces of smeg brought to us by Sean Costello.Which is what we are getting, Shortfin Barracuda
RTT_Rules
No we are not, they are not the same. The Barracuda is nuclear powered (SSN) the Shortfin Barracuda is Diesel-Electric (SSK).
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA

We would be better off buying the actual Barracuda SSN, not the over priced pieces of smeg brought to us by Sean Costello.Which is what we are getting, Shortfin Barracuda
RTT_Rules
They're not the same thing... There's going to be quite some difference.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

The US is keen to sell us platforms, but there are limitations. Australia does enjoy a superior level of access to the technology over other US partners, but it isn't open ended.
The US does not sell nuclear powered submarine technology, ever, full stop.

Australia may go down the pathway of converting 6 of the final subs to nuclear, but that decision is +10 years away and with it yes comes all the other crap with it.

Before considering the cost of buying a nuclear sub from the US, note their subs are huge compared to ours, perhaps review the price. The Virginia class are US$ 7B a piece, just to buy.

The US will support Australia with its subs, but it will never sell one to us.
RTT_Rules
More like US$3 billion...definitely not US$7 billion per boat.

The best option for the RAN would have been the Royal Navy Astute class. It has a design life of 25 years (as opposed to the 30 of the Barracuda), but it does not need a mid life refuel of the reactors.

Disposal is still an issue...
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
The F-35 (ordered by the Gillard government for Australia) is proving to be a very expensive and overly-heavy aircraft so the United States is coming up with something cheaper... Forbes Magazine;
BTW the F-35 has been a bi-partisan supported acquisition. In fact it was the Howard government that signed up to it and cancelled a competitive flyoff for a new jet to replace the old F-18A/B Hornets.

There was no circumstance under which Australia was not going to buy into the F-35.
Mr. Lane
Okay, informative thank-you.
There is absolutely no such obligation and it is highly unlikely that the US would sell or lease SSNs to Australia. The US was recently asked if a sale of the upcoming B-21 Raider to Australia was a possibility and the answer was a polite but distinct "no." I personally think we would have been best off going with the Royal Navy Astute class, but even they may have been cagey on the issue. Few countries can operate nuke subs and even fewer can build them.
Mr Lane
I'll take your word for it - they have no problem selling us other stuff like they do lots of other 'favored' nations but maybe proprietary tech is extremely sensitive for that particular thing. We do have a history of hopelessly leaking things to potential adversaries.

You go on to say Astute Class but is there any guarantee we'd be allowed to participate in that project either? Also realistically you've got to sell the use of nuclear to the Australian people which is why we squibbed and went for diesel to begin with (despite the extra problems that presented). Wasn't that the story?

Since there are some actual people here with knowledge of the situation - do either you or Aaron want to share your opinions on the future of the Attack Class project and whether its a good thing or a bad thing that its cancelled?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

We would be better off buying the actual Barracuda SSN, not the over priced pieces of smeg brought to us by Sean Costello.Which is what we are getting, Shortfin BarracudaThey're not the same thing... There's going to be quite some difference.
Aaron
Yes, agree its not the nuclear powered version, but the platform and overall size of the boat is as I understand it the same.

There is no way right now an Australian govt will get  the purchase of a nuclear power sub approved by the public. Hence why the govt left it open for the last 6 boats to be nuclear model.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The US is keen to sell us platforms, but there are limitations. Australia does enjoy a superior level of access to the technology over other US partners, but it isn't open ended.
The US does not sell nuclear powered submarine technology, ever, full stop.

Australia may go down the pathway of converting 6 of the final subs to nuclear, but that decision is +10 years away and with it yes comes all the other crap with it.

Before considering the cost of buying a nuclear sub from the US, note their subs are huge compared to ours, perhaps review the price. The Virginia class are US$ 7B a piece, just to buy.

The US will support Australia with its subs, but it will never sell one to us.
More like US$3 billion...definitely not US$7 billion per boat.

The best option for the RAN would have been the Royal Navy Astute class. It has a design life of 25 years (as opposed to the 30 of the Barracuda), but it does not need a mid life refuel of the reactors.

Disposal is still an issue...
Mr. Lane
Ok agree, yes the cost I mentioned previously was the entire project cost divided by the fleet number.

Regardless won't happen
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
There is absolutely no such obligation and it is highly unlikely that the US would sell or lease SSNs to Australia. The US was recently asked if a sale of the upcoming B-21 Raider to Australia was a possibility and the answer was a polite but distinct "no." I personally think we would have been best off going with the Royal Navy Astute class, but even they may have been cagey on the issue. Few countries can operate nuke subs and even fewer can build them.
I'll take your word for it - they have no problem selling us other stuff like they do lots of other 'favored' nations but maybe proprietary tech is extremely sensitive for that particular thing. We do have a history of hopelessly leaking things to potential adversaries.

You go on to say Astute Class but is there any guarantee we'd be allowed to participate in that project either? Also realistically you've got to sell the use of nuclear to the Australian people which is why we squibbed and went for diesel to begin with (despite the extra problems that presented). Wasn't that the story?

Since there are some actual people here with knowledge of the situation - do either you or Aaron want to share your opinions on the future of the Attack Class project and whether its a good thing or a bad thing that its cancelled?
don_dunstan
There is a difference between selling their used junk and common user projects like F35 projects and buying into USA only hardware for which the USA Congress will not approve for external sale or resale.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
An incredibly rare juncture where I agree with you: The US has an obligation under ANZUS to sell us whatever we need. A couple of second-hand nuclear submarines at a fraction of the cost of the Attack Class units would suffice.


No quite correct. The US is not obliged to sell us anything that we need under ANZUS. A recent example is the F22 raptor. They were in the mix for planning. Apart from the challenges to maintain them (which is significantly more complex than the F35) and the fact that they are currently only air to air capable presently, the US decided not to sell these to any alliance partners including Australia. Even though our politicians did make noise about this.

The US is not obliged to sell us nuclear capable subs if we wanted them. However if Australia decided to buy nuclear powered subs, I am sure that the US would allow us to buy, so that they can make a sale (to deny other suppliers), not because of any treaty. The real issue is that, if we did decide to go that way, it would be a massive change in terms of sailing subs. the challenge will be if our population will accept that. I doubt it, as we are not willing to have a large scale fission reactor for power, let alone a repository for spent nuclear fuel. How many decades have these issues have been discussed?

Even if there is a miracle and our community wants it, the US will put their interest first. Will enabling Australia to have nuclear capable subs ratchet up a risk of neighbouring countries buying similar equipment from China or Russia, even if they are aligned with the US? That will probably force the US to spend more to have presence to balance any increase in this region. Ironically, I think it does suit the US, that we do not sail nuclear powered subs.

The US is keen to sell us platforms, but there are limitations. Australia does enjoy a superior level of access to the technology over other US partners, but it isn't open ended.
The biggest military ‘thing’ the US have sold to us is Link 11/16 etc.

They might ‘sell’ us a Los Angeles, but they’re getting a little long in the tooth now, Seawolf? Forget it, and the Virginia would likely have to be quite neutered to be available to sale to other nations.

We would be better off buying the actual Barracuda SSN, not the over priced pieces of smeg brought to us by Sean Costello.

I would say the F-35 and the Aegis combat system on the Hobarts (and later the Hunters) would be the top tier items the US has been willing to sell. Loads of countries have Link 11/16 integration.
Mr. Lane
Link 11/16 is with most (all?) of NATO, but being able to see all sensor data from all equipped US/NATO assets within 200nm for a surface ship (it's likely classified, but I know it's at least that far) is I think more strategic than the F-35s.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
To Valvegear’s question on why we need submarines at all???
It’s like the Army having tanks. We have them purely as a deterrent. OR put more simply we have them ONLY because others have them.
Have we deployed them anywhere oversees? NO. But the reason I just told you why we have them makes their non deployed irrelevant.
davesvline
We nearly did, Leopards were on rapid deployment standby in Darwin for use by INTERFET in East Timor, my cousin had to practice loading them into RAAF C130.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

You go on to say Astute Class but is there any guarantee we'd be allowed to participate in that project either? Also realistically you've got to sell the use of nuclear to the Australian people which is why we squibbed and went for diesel to begin with (despite the extra problems that presented). Wasn't that the story?

Since there are some actual people here with knowledge of the situation - do either you or Aaron want to share your opinions on the future of the Attack Class project and whether its a good thing or a bad thing that its cancelled?
don_dunstan
No, I don't think there would be guaranteed access to the Astute class either, however, the British are much shorter on cash than the US and are generally more willing to transfer technology and IP than the US.

In fact one of the drawcards/selling points of European weapons systems is that they are more wiling than the US to do this. When you buy from the US you get excellent equipment with established supply chains and support for decades, but you also are buying into a closed system. This raises sovereignty questions over whether a country really does have full control over the systems they have purchased.

The US for example simply doesn't allow access to the source code for its fighter jets. If you want to make changes to the mission computer, you have to go through the contractor, you can't do it yourself.

As for the Attack class: its a hard one honestly. I do believe that Australia should build its own ships and submarines, but it is expensive no doubt. The problem we have is that we have a geographical position that nuclear submarines are best suited for, but we don't have the technology nor the political will.

The Attack class is all about getting as close as possible to a nuclear submarine capability, without actually going nuclear. That is always going to mean a bespoke design that is compromised. I honestly am unsure myself if they made the right decision, but cancelling now just creates even more issues.

The next generation submarine program really needed to start as soon as the last Collins was delivered. It would have made more sense to start on a "son of Collins" design aimed at delivering six submarines beginning in the 2024 timeframe, with then a more advanced design for a second six down the track. Because they said "job done" after Collins and sat on their hands, we now have have this big gulf between Collins and Attack, which will means billions of dollars needed for a life extension of Collins.

Many people mention buying small Swedish, German or French AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) submarines like the Gotlands or Scorpene, but these are generally coastal subs and AIP isn't necessarily that great when transiting long distances at speed in the open ocean.

What is interesting is the original selection for the Next Gen Sub by the Abbott Government...the Japanese Soryu class. The original design offered was the AIP design, but now Japan has switched production to Lithium-Ion battery propulsion. It is unproven, but it could further bridge the gap between Lead-Acid (Collins/Attack class) and nuclear subs.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner


We would be better off buying the actual Barracuda SSN, not the over priced pieces of smeg brought to us by Sean Costello.Which is what we are getting, Shortfin BarracudaThey're not the same thing... There's going to be quite some difference.Yes, agree its not the nuclear powered version, but the platform and overall size of the boat is as I understand it the same.

There is no way right now an Australian govt will get  the purchase of a nuclear power sub approved by the public. Hence why the govt left it open for the last 6 boats to be nuclear model.
RTT_Rules
Virtually all of the sensors, combat system and weapons will be replaced with the same kit going into the USN Virginia class.

French hull, bespoke propulsion, US sensors, computers and weapons. Built in Australia. What could go wrong?
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
You go on to say Astute Class but is there any guarantee we'd be allowed to participate in that project either? Also realistically you've got to sell the use of nuclear to the Australian people which is why we squibbed and went for diesel to begin with (despite the extra problems that presented). Wasn't that the story?

Since there are some actual people here with knowledge of the situation - do either you or Aaron want to share your opinions on the future of the Attack Class project and whether its a good thing or a bad thing that its cancelled?
No, I don't think there would be guaranteed access to the Astute class either, however, the British are much shorter on cash than the US and are generally more willing to transfer technology and IP than the US.

In fact one of the drawcards/selling points of European weapons systems is that they are more wiling than the US to do this. When you buy from the US you get excellent equipment with established supply chains and support for decades, but you also are buying into a closed system. This raises sovereignty questions over whether a country really does have full control over the systems they have purchased.

The US for example simply doesn't allow access to the source code for its fighter jets. If you want to make changes to the mission computer, you have to go through the contractor, you can't do it yourself.

As for the Attack class: its a hard one honestly. I do believe that Australia should build its own ships and submarines, but it is expensive no doubt. The problem we have is that we have a geographical position that nuclear submarines are best suited for, but we don't have the technology nor the political will.

The Attack class is all about getting as close as possible to a nuclear submarine capability, without actually going nuclear. That is always going to mean a bespoke design that is compromised. I honestly am unsure myself if they made the right decision, but cancelling now just creates even more issues.

The next generation submarine program really needed to start as soon as the last Collins was delivered. It would have made more sense to start on a "son of Collins" design aimed at delivering six submarines beginning in the 2024 timeframe, with then a more advanced design for a second six down the track. Because they said "job done" after Collins and sat on their hands, we now have have this big gulf between Collins and Attack, which will means billions of dollars needed for a life extension of Collins.

Many people mention buying small Swedish, German or French AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) submarines like the Gotlands or Scorpene, but these are generally coastal subs and AIP isn't necessarily that great when transiting long distances at speed in the open ocean.

What is interesting is the original selection for the Next Gen Sub by the Abbott Government...the Japanese Soryu class. The original design offered was the AIP design, but now Japan has switched production to Lithium-Ion battery propulsion. It is unproven, but it could further bridge the gap between Lead-Acid (Collins/Attack class) and nuclear subs.
Mr. Lane
For what it's worth, I think we should have gone Soryu too, a few 'off the shelf' for right now as we build facility to build the rest if all 'off the shelf' couldn't be done.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
Yes Valvegear was incorrect.
RTT_Rules
Could you please explain where I was incorrect? I asked a question about submarines.
  freightgate Minister for Railways

Location: Albury, New South Wales
Has the cabinet minister been named anywhere and if not why not ?
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Has the cabinet minister been named anywhere and if not why not ?
freightgate
Why? The alleged victim of the alleged incident is deceased, an initial statement isn't a lot to go on in terms of evidence, in the absence of any testable evidence, what would he say 'It didn't happen, or didn't happen in that manner' a determination either way couldn't be made. I am not sure what actually can be gained here.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Has the cabinet minister been named anywhere and if not why not ?
freightgate
He was certainly named in the letter sent to Morrison, Wong and Hanson-Young.

The alleged rape apparently occurred around 30 years ago. It would be safe to assume that the alleged perpetrator is male. It is also more likely that the alleged perpetrator is now over 50 years old. So, take your pick from Scott Morrison, Michael McCormack, Greg Hunt, Paul Fletcher, Dan Tehan, Keith Pitt, Angus Taylor, Ken Wyatt or Darren Chester.

Christian Porter, Alan Tudge, Stuart Robert and Peter Dutton are all presently 50.

There is no doubt that the identity of the alleged perpetrator is well known in media circles. Kudos to them for doing the right thing.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
We have been through this before, but you still harp on.

Cars are not complex, that's why they are not made here.
RTT_Rules
Yeah, exactly. A car is exactly the same as a lump of coal or a ship-load of iron ore. It's not complex manufacture at all.
Replicate the production line of a submarine? One that's only be made a few times. What sort of production line do you really think there is Don? How many common parts are there Don? Why do you think these things cost billions Don?
RTT_Rules
There's no local production line here, Shane - that's why the price tag kept accelerating away from $90 billion. These lines of supply had to be established here in order to meet the conditions of the contract that specified an amount of local content.

Get it? That's why the costs were going through the roof.

I guess using the same argument as "cars aren't complex" you'll tell us in the same breath that submarines aren't complex which is why they SHOULD be made here. Right?
  freightgate Minister for Railways

Location: Albury, New South Wales
https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2021/03/02/attorney-general-christian-porter-alleged-to-have-raped-16-yr-old-katharine-thornton-in-1988/

According to this the man they are talking about is Christian Porter the attorney general.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
I sense some confusion in this thread. There are two rape allegations currently being aired. In one of them the alleged victim is deceased (call it case A). In the other (case B), the alleged victim is alive and has identified herself.

The alleged offender in case A is the subject of conjecture.  In case B, the name of the alleged offender is known, but is being kept quiet.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: