HawkisRight
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2020
- Messages
- 2,033
- Likes
- 13,376
I have listened S Jaishankar's kid in few discussions and my instant thought was he is a Abhishek Bachchan..i guess u get my point..
QUAD; The Concert of Democracies for Trade, Security & Diplomacy
- Thread starter Levina
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 31,905
- Likes
- 147,985
not sure how I am supposed to respond.
even if he is a recommendation candidate, so be it. his fraternity is flooded with JNU and Ashoka university candidates. one less political candidate is welcome in my view.
as far as his writings on foreign policy are concerned, ideally they will evolve over time.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,952
- Likes
- 16,843
Again providing excuse instead of justification.
Civilized people don't knowingly incinerate children. War criminal's do. What USA did was a genocide. There can't be any heinous crime greater than using atomic bomb on civilian habitat. Yet, those who did it don't feel any remorse and have cultivated asslickers who parrot its lines.
Did anyone at that time other than USA have Atom bomb? Then why couldn't USA have stopped after Hiroshima and opened negotiation for complete surrender? There was no way any other power could have retaliated against USA with same force to give Japan any breather, then what was the need for annihilating another city full of civilians?
Iow Jima was Japan's own soil and obviously they would fight to the bitter end. Yet, there could have been dozens of legitimate military target and when USA had complete control over the airspace in most places, an atom bomb over those military target could have been a first show of force. Instead they chose a city full of civilians.
Justification, my ass!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2020
- Messages
- 7,650
- Likes
- 21,949
Indeed true sirji , no justification can be given
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2021
- Messages
- 2,137
- Likes
- 13,749
And before that too, they killed 100,000 civilians in Tokyo in Operation Meetinghouse even though Japan had expressed desire to sign a peace agreement.
Also keep in mind that it was the USA that started the war with Japan, not the other way around as is widely and falsely believed.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2020
- Messages
- 7,650
- Likes
- 21,949
Yes , the japnese did a defensive action by attacking pearl harbor which was totally justified.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2021
- Messages
- 2,137
- Likes
- 13,749
Pearl Harbor was not the starting point. The United States was aiding China in the Second Sino-Japanese War against Japan and blockading Japan to deprive it of critical resources prior to Japan’s attack on US troops and imperial territories. Pearl Harbor happened way after this.
Also little known fact: Roosevelt KNEW Pearl Harbor was going to happen. He knew the attack was coming and yet did nothing to stop it.
Reason?
Because Churchill was begging him for help and getting involved in the war. But the American public at that time was OVERWHELMINGLY anti-war. Roosevelt couldn't just enter the war on a whim. Pearl Harbor provided the perfect "innocent bystander shockingly assaulted out of the blue" excuse. Which was completely false since they were actively aiding China and trying to blockade and starve Japan way before Pearl Harbor.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,556
Under the prevailing circumstances of WW2 against the Japs, and the prospect of sending hundreds of thousands of young American boys to death against a fanatical enemy and an equally fanatical civilian population, to me the Atom bomb represents the more favorable option (at the time).
The post-WW2 economic miracle of Japan is a testament to the correctness of the decision to nuke the Japs back into their wits in 1945.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,556
The 5 Main Options For Australia’s AUKUS Nuclear Submarine Deal
Since the announcement that Australia will build nuclear-powered submarines on September 15, speculation has been rife as to which submarines are being considered. The partners, Australian-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS), have given themselves 18 months to come up with a plan.
Few details have trickled out since the joint announcement. So the question remains, which type of nuclear submarine will Australia get? Stepping back, let’s explore the options.
We can be confident that the submarine will essentially be British or American. There are five main options to consider.
The first two are the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy’s existing designs, the (1) Virginia Class and (2) Astute Class. Then there are the corresponding next generation attack submarine programs, the (3) SSN(X) and (4) SSN(R). And lastly, (5) a whole new design but leveraging technology from US and UK.
More ambitiously it might be a substantially indigenous design with only minimal input from US or UK. Or perhaps the next generation submarine projects of all three countries will be combined into a single type, to be built in all three countries. These possibilities feel less likely at this point.
Other honorable mentions could include a fourth country’s design such as France or India. Or China or Russia (as if!). Or only second-hand submarines. Maybe even older ballistic missile types (SSBNs) repurposed as attack submarines. None of these solutions really ring true with the original announcement and are not being explored any further in this article.
1. Virginia Class – America’s trusted attack submarine
The first type which comes to many lips is the U.S. Navy’s Virginia Class. No one doubts its capabilities, and commonality with the US Navy would yield training and support benefits. It uses US weapons systems, which the RAN already has in its inventory, such as the Mk.48 ADCAP torpedo.
And its vertical launch system (VLS) gives compatibility with Tomahawk cruise missiles. Australia is already set to acquire these, but for the surface fleet. It would be natural to put them aboard the Virginias too.
In fact the Virginias make less sense without Tomahawk or some other missile to put into the VLS. The current Block-IV Virginias have 12 vertical missiles, and the Block-V will have 40. The Block-V’s capacity seems overkill, so a Block-IV appears more likely. Although benefiting from some advancements from later blocks.
A challenge with the Virginia Class could be the cost of setting up Australian production. Although there is speculation that Australia could acquire the boats straight off US production lines, this isn’t in the spirit of the announcement. And US yards have years of Virginia class construction ahead. So a new set of tooling would need to be made to set up a new production line in Australia.
2. Astute Class – the British option
The Royal Navy’s Astute class is broadly equivalent to the Virginia Class. Similar in overall size and capability, it may have a couple of advantages which might attract the RAN. The first is that, unlike with the Virginias, tooling might already be available. The last of the Royal Navy’s 7 boats, HMS Agincourt, is expected to be floated in the next couple of years. This might free up the tooling which could be shipped to Australia, representing a significant cost and time saving.
Another potential strength of the Astute is that it has a smaller crew. Still much larger than the current Collins Class, that is to be expected for a long-range nuclear boat, but smaller than the Virginia’s. The Astute is crewed by 98-109 people, while the Virginias normally have around 135. The Collin’s for comparison has 58, so we are talking about at least doubling the submariner needs.
A challenge for the Astute option might be the nuclear reactor. The current PWR2 reactor is no longer in production. Potentially the newer PWR3, or a US reactor, could be fitted, but this would complicate things.
At any rate an Australian Astute Class boat would likely have some modifications to suit RAN needs. We can speculate that these might include an alternative sonar and possibly US weapons to keep continuity with the Collins. But it is anyway compatible with tube-launched Tomahawks.
Some technologies for the next generation SSN(R) design could also be incorporated, which brings us to the next two options.
3 & 4. Next Generation Attack Submarines
Joining one of the existing next-generation projects, SSN(X) and SSN(R), could allow Australia to enter the nuclear submarine club at the very top. Advances in propulsion, sonar, stealth, quantum computing, integration with uncrewed underwater vehicles and so on, would be baked in.
It would also allow the other party, US or UK, to more directly share the development costs, which might be more attractive. The challenge of course will be timelines. Australia needs new submarines to be in the water in 2040s, and the current Collins Class will only last until around 2048. Both the SSN(X) and SSN(R) are expected to start getting wet in the 2030s. But timelines on these types of project are always likely subject to skepticism. Especially if another navy joins the party and adds requirements.
One key technology which hasn’t been discussed much is hypersonic weapons. The US Navy appears to be going that way, and possibly the Royal Navy too. If the RAN want to future-proof, them might consider this variable. Which boat lines them up best for future weapons?
The next-generation boats are also expected to be larger than the current types. Partly this will be due to improved stealth with new propulsion technologies. But in the submarine game, larger normally means more expensive.
5. A truly Australian design
By going their own way, Australia could build a submarine tailored to their needs while still leveraging key British or American technologies. The result might be a smaller and cheaper boat, yet still giving the RAN the main advantages of nuclear power.
Of course this option takes the biggest risk in design terms, even if the end product is more modest. In particular, it would place a strain on the limited pool of naval architects and engineers needed to design it. This is actually true of all the options above, but more so with this one. Would the Australian program be poaching designers from the SSN(X) and SSN(R) programs?
Outlook
Whatever the options being considered, building nuclear submarines in Australia will take decades. In the meantime the current Collins Class diesel-electric submarines will be upgraded to keep them operable.
The RAN might also consider leasing US Navy or Royal Navy boats. Several Los Angeles Class and Trafalgar Class boats are due for retirement in the coming years. These could be extended for a few years until the fuel runs out. Maybe even moored in port as stationary training platforms. In addition to these types of progressive steps, RAN submariners could become a common sight aboard British and American boats. And Australian engineers too.
Stepping back again, it is a massive undertaking for the RAN. But they are lucky to have the AUKUS partnership which opens the door to these illusive technologies.
The biggest threat may be in the process. The boats are all excellent, there is almost no bad option. But an indecision or ambiguity could lead to delays.
And regardless of the RAN program, we may see more countries going for nuclear submarines. And China, the focus of the AUKUS submarine deal, won’t slow down to accommodate Australia’s challenges.
www.navalnews.com
Since the announcement that Australia will build nuclear-powered submarines on September 15, speculation has been rife as to which submarines are being considered. The partners, Australian-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS), have given themselves 18 months to come up with a plan.
Few details have trickled out since the joint announcement. So the question remains, which type of nuclear submarine will Australia get? Stepping back, let’s explore the options.
We can be confident that the submarine will essentially be British or American. There are five main options to consider.
The first two are the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy’s existing designs, the (1) Virginia Class and (2) Astute Class. Then there are the corresponding next generation attack submarine programs, the (3) SSN(X) and (4) SSN(R). And lastly, (5) a whole new design but leveraging technology from US and UK.
More ambitiously it might be a substantially indigenous design with only minimal input from US or UK. Or perhaps the next generation submarine projects of all three countries will be combined into a single type, to be built in all three countries. These possibilities feel less likely at this point.
Other honorable mentions could include a fourth country’s design such as France or India. Or China or Russia (as if!). Or only second-hand submarines. Maybe even older ballistic missile types (SSBNs) repurposed as attack submarines. None of these solutions really ring true with the original announcement and are not being explored any further in this article.
1. Virginia Class – America’s trusted attack submarine
The first type which comes to many lips is the U.S. Navy’s Virginia Class. No one doubts its capabilities, and commonality with the US Navy would yield training and support benefits. It uses US weapons systems, which the RAN already has in its inventory, such as the Mk.48 ADCAP torpedo.
And its vertical launch system (VLS) gives compatibility with Tomahawk cruise missiles. Australia is already set to acquire these, but for the surface fleet. It would be natural to put them aboard the Virginias too.
In fact the Virginias make less sense without Tomahawk or some other missile to put into the VLS. The current Block-IV Virginias have 12 vertical missiles, and the Block-V will have 40. The Block-V’s capacity seems overkill, so a Block-IV appears more likely. Although benefiting from some advancements from later blocks.
A challenge with the Virginia Class could be the cost of setting up Australian production. Although there is speculation that Australia could acquire the boats straight off US production lines, this isn’t in the spirit of the announcement. And US yards have years of Virginia class construction ahead. So a new set of tooling would need to be made to set up a new production line in Australia.
2. Astute Class – the British option
The Royal Navy’s Astute class is broadly equivalent to the Virginia Class. Similar in overall size and capability, it may have a couple of advantages which might attract the RAN. The first is that, unlike with the Virginias, tooling might already be available. The last of the Royal Navy’s 7 boats, HMS Agincourt, is expected to be floated in the next couple of years. This might free up the tooling which could be shipped to Australia, representing a significant cost and time saving.
Another potential strength of the Astute is that it has a smaller crew. Still much larger than the current Collins Class, that is to be expected for a long-range nuclear boat, but smaller than the Virginia’s. The Astute is crewed by 98-109 people, while the Virginias normally have around 135. The Collin’s for comparison has 58, so we are talking about at least doubling the submariner needs.
A challenge for the Astute option might be the nuclear reactor. The current PWR2 reactor is no longer in production. Potentially the newer PWR3, or a US reactor, could be fitted, but this would complicate things.
At any rate an Australian Astute Class boat would likely have some modifications to suit RAN needs. We can speculate that these might include an alternative sonar and possibly US weapons to keep continuity with the Collins. But it is anyway compatible with tube-launched Tomahawks.
Some technologies for the next generation SSN(R) design could also be incorporated, which brings us to the next two options.
3 & 4. Next Generation Attack Submarines
Joining one of the existing next-generation projects, SSN(X) and SSN(R), could allow Australia to enter the nuclear submarine club at the very top. Advances in propulsion, sonar, stealth, quantum computing, integration with uncrewed underwater vehicles and so on, would be baked in.
It would also allow the other party, US or UK, to more directly share the development costs, which might be more attractive. The challenge of course will be timelines. Australia needs new submarines to be in the water in 2040s, and the current Collins Class will only last until around 2048. Both the SSN(X) and SSN(R) are expected to start getting wet in the 2030s. But timelines on these types of project are always likely subject to skepticism. Especially if another navy joins the party and adds requirements.
One key technology which hasn’t been discussed much is hypersonic weapons. The US Navy appears to be going that way, and possibly the Royal Navy too. If the RAN want to future-proof, them might consider this variable. Which boat lines them up best for future weapons?
The next-generation boats are also expected to be larger than the current types. Partly this will be due to improved stealth with new propulsion technologies. But in the submarine game, larger normally means more expensive.
5. A truly Australian design
By going their own way, Australia could build a submarine tailored to their needs while still leveraging key British or American technologies. The result might be a smaller and cheaper boat, yet still giving the RAN the main advantages of nuclear power.
Of course this option takes the biggest risk in design terms, even if the end product is more modest. In particular, it would place a strain on the limited pool of naval architects and engineers needed to design it. This is actually true of all the options above, but more so with this one. Would the Australian program be poaching designers from the SSN(X) and SSN(R) programs?
Outlook
Whatever the options being considered, building nuclear submarines in Australia will take decades. In the meantime the current Collins Class diesel-electric submarines will be upgraded to keep them operable.
The RAN might also consider leasing US Navy or Royal Navy boats. Several Los Angeles Class and Trafalgar Class boats are due for retirement in the coming years. These could be extended for a few years until the fuel runs out. Maybe even moored in port as stationary training platforms. In addition to these types of progressive steps, RAN submariners could become a common sight aboard British and American boats. And Australian engineers too.
Stepping back again, it is a massive undertaking for the RAN. But they are lucky to have the AUKUS partnership which opens the door to these illusive technologies.
The biggest threat may be in the process. The boats are all excellent, there is almost no bad option. But an indecision or ambiguity could lead to delays.
And regardless of the RAN program, we may see more countries going for nuclear submarines. And China, the focus of the AUKUS submarine deal, won’t slow down to accommodate Australia’s challenges.
The 5 Main Options For Australia’s AUKUS Nuclear Submarine Deal - Naval News
As Australia looks set to join the elite club of nuclear submarine operators, we explore the options. The U.S. Navy's Virginia Class? The Royal Navy's Astute Class? Or something new? We have identified the 5 most obvious candidates.
www.navalnews.com
#AUKUS
"As things stand, it is unlikely Australia will ever get a nuclear submarine. All that we have done so far is cancel the French submarine. My guess is this delays any submarine at all by at least 10 years.
It fills me with regret to say this, but analytically the conclusion is inescapable that the nuclear subs under the AUKUS rubric will probably proceed the way of all our other submarine announcements. They will enjoy a brief flower of credibility before doubts creep in, critics become mobilised, the prime minister who ordered them moves on and eventually they are consigned to the dustbin for a new submarine announcement that can enjoy its brief season in the sun.
Our submarine acquisition process remains a complete shambles and the chances of anything significant emerging from it remain remote.
My colleague Dennis Shanahan reported from the recent prime ministerial trip to the US that the government was not interested in leasing a nuclear submarine from the US over the next several years. Instead it wanted to add new submarines to the allied fleet, rather than take a sub or two out of the existing US and British lines. On its own, this approach probably guarantees that nothing of consequence comes of this initiative.
Malcolm Turnbull was savage in his National Press Club attack on the Morrison government’s decision to ditch the French subs and go nuclear. Turnbull exaggerates the diplomatic cost. However, his technical critique of the nuclear subs proposal was substantial. He drew attention to obvious contradictions in the process.
All we have done so far is cancel the French subs. As of now, we have no future submarine program at all. The Morrison government scored a diplomatic triumph in getting the Americans to agree to transfer nuclear submarine propulsion to us and in the way AUKUS was presented.
But the global reaction was based on the idea, wholly mistaken, that we would be getting the nuclear subs some time soon.
In his first press conference, Scott Morrison said the subs would be built in Adelaide and he hoped we might start the build before the end of this decade and get the first one into service before the end of the next decade; that is, 2040. Here are some laws of the physical universe and the operation of logic that cannot be contradicted or transcended. If we do not lease a sub and instead make them all in Adelaide we will not get the first one before 2040. Frankly, even that date involves almost miraculous virtuosity.
Every major, complex naval build we’ve undertaken has come in way over budget and long over schedule.
In the history of human habitation of this continent, nothing remotely comparable in complexity to building a nuclear submarine has ever been attempted.
Obviously, it makes no industrial or military sense to build the subs in Adelaide. Doing so will add years to the schedule and tens of billions of dollars to the cost. The French are criticised for prospective delays in their conventional subs, but we could have had them much more quickly if they were built in France.
But here is a moral certainty. The dialectics of Australian politics will force both the Coalition and Labor, before the next election, to commit to building all the subs in Adelaide.
Say by some miracle the process stays on track and we actually get a boat in the water by 2040 – pretty unlikely, but not absolutely impossible – that does not mean we have our replacement submarine fleet by 2040. If we can build one nuclear sub every three years after that we will be doing very well. That means we would get our fleet of eight subs by 2061.
In terms of military capability in the face of the strategic challenges we face in the next decade or two, that is truly a sick joke. It’s the three-card trick all over again.
The capability gap we have to bridge is not up to 2040 but up to, say, 2055, when we might get the sixth nuclear boat and can therefore replace, one for one, the Collins boats. Of course the nuclear subs will be much more capable than the Collins, but they’re no good at all if they don’t actually exist.
Australian submarine policy right now requires the Collins boats to remain our frontline submarine capability until at least the 2040s. No living Australian prime minister has commissioned a sub that actually got built. The last prime minister to do so was Bob Hawke. The Collins boats were commissioned in the 1980s, yet must serve into the 2040s. The frankly batshit crazy quality of our circumstances is evident in this comparison: it would be as if Britain commissioned a new weapons system under Queen Victoria in 1901 and it was still in service as the main British weapons system at the time of the Beatles in the 1960s.
It is impossible to understand why the Brits are in the mix, apart from PR. If we choose the British Astute sub and don’t modify it, that means ditching the jewel of our defence technology, the US combat system that we have on the Collins, as well as most of the US weapons we use on the Collins. So the US, at the end of all this, would be getting billions of dollars less work from us and our navies would be less integrated.
Alternatively, there is talk of choosing the Astute but putting a US combat system, US weapons and even US propulsion system into it. Dear God in heaven, if we embrace the insanity of designing a new nuclear sub just for Australia, even 2060 will be optimistic for the first boat.
Or if we choose the Virginia, as we must, the Brits get nothing, yet Boris Johnson was assuring the British public that AUKUS meant hundreds and hundreds of well-paid jobs in Britain’s north. We made a mistake choosing the British Type 26 frigate, which still is not in service even in Britain and is two years behind schedule and counting. Just imagine a Brit submarine saga.
A cynical interpretation might be that the Liberals never explained, championed or campaigned for their own choice of the French sub. Choosing Marise Payne and then Linda Reynolds as defence ministers was grotesque, by Turnbull and Morrison respectively, as neither could carry the debate or the portfolio
So the government has solved only the problem that its own incompetent, lazy and inexplicable failure to champion its own defence programs brought about, but so far has substituted nothing concrete for it.
The result is likely no submarine capability for us at all, except museum piece Collins boats and whatever submarine visits the Americans or Brits send along. We should have kept the French subs going, perhaps at a reduced number of six or even three, then gone nuclear in an orderly way.
Instead we have once more followed our own traditions of grand announcement leading to grand shambles."
www.theaustralian.com.au
"As things stand, it is unlikely Australia will ever get a nuclear submarine. All that we have done so far is cancel the French submarine. My guess is this delays any submarine at all by at least 10 years.
It fills me with regret to say this, but analytically the conclusion is inescapable that the nuclear subs under the AUKUS rubric will probably proceed the way of all our other submarine announcements. They will enjoy a brief flower of credibility before doubts creep in, critics become mobilised, the prime minister who ordered them moves on and eventually they are consigned to the dustbin for a new submarine announcement that can enjoy its brief season in the sun.
Our submarine acquisition process remains a complete shambles and the chances of anything significant emerging from it remain remote.
My colleague Dennis Shanahan reported from the recent prime ministerial trip to the US that the government was not interested in leasing a nuclear submarine from the US over the next several years. Instead it wanted to add new submarines to the allied fleet, rather than take a sub or two out of the existing US and British lines. On its own, this approach probably guarantees that nothing of consequence comes of this initiative.
Malcolm Turnbull was savage in his National Press Club attack on the Morrison government’s decision to ditch the French subs and go nuclear. Turnbull exaggerates the diplomatic cost. However, his technical critique of the nuclear subs proposal was substantial. He drew attention to obvious contradictions in the process.
All we have done so far is cancel the French subs. As of now, we have no future submarine program at all. The Morrison government scored a diplomatic triumph in getting the Americans to agree to transfer nuclear submarine propulsion to us and in the way AUKUS was presented.
But the global reaction was based on the idea, wholly mistaken, that we would be getting the nuclear subs some time soon.
In his first press conference, Scott Morrison said the subs would be built in Adelaide and he hoped we might start the build before the end of this decade and get the first one into service before the end of the next decade; that is, 2040. Here are some laws of the physical universe and the operation of logic that cannot be contradicted or transcended. If we do not lease a sub and instead make them all in Adelaide we will not get the first one before 2040. Frankly, even that date involves almost miraculous virtuosity.
Every major, complex naval build we’ve undertaken has come in way over budget and long over schedule.
In the history of human habitation of this continent, nothing remotely comparable in complexity to building a nuclear submarine has ever been attempted.
Obviously, it makes no industrial or military sense to build the subs in Adelaide. Doing so will add years to the schedule and tens of billions of dollars to the cost. The French are criticised for prospective delays in their conventional subs, but we could have had them much more quickly if they were built in France.
But here is a moral certainty. The dialectics of Australian politics will force both the Coalition and Labor, before the next election, to commit to building all the subs in Adelaide.
Say by some miracle the process stays on track and we actually get a boat in the water by 2040 – pretty unlikely, but not absolutely impossible – that does not mean we have our replacement submarine fleet by 2040. If we can build one nuclear sub every three years after that we will be doing very well. That means we would get our fleet of eight subs by 2061.
In terms of military capability in the face of the strategic challenges we face in the next decade or two, that is truly a sick joke. It’s the three-card trick all over again.
The capability gap we have to bridge is not up to 2040 but up to, say, 2055, when we might get the sixth nuclear boat and can therefore replace, one for one, the Collins boats. Of course the nuclear subs will be much more capable than the Collins, but they’re no good at all if they don’t actually exist.
Australian submarine policy right now requires the Collins boats to remain our frontline submarine capability until at least the 2040s. No living Australian prime minister has commissioned a sub that actually got built. The last prime minister to do so was Bob Hawke. The Collins boats were commissioned in the 1980s, yet must serve into the 2040s. The frankly batshit crazy quality of our circumstances is evident in this comparison: it would be as if Britain commissioned a new weapons system under Queen Victoria in 1901 and it was still in service as the main British weapons system at the time of the Beatles in the 1960s.
It is impossible to understand why the Brits are in the mix, apart from PR. If we choose the British Astute sub and don’t modify it, that means ditching the jewel of our defence technology, the US combat system that we have on the Collins, as well as most of the US weapons we use on the Collins. So the US, at the end of all this, would be getting billions of dollars less work from us and our navies would be less integrated.
Alternatively, there is talk of choosing the Astute but putting a US combat system, US weapons and even US propulsion system into it. Dear God in heaven, if we embrace the insanity of designing a new nuclear sub just for Australia, even 2060 will be optimistic for the first boat.
Or if we choose the Virginia, as we must, the Brits get nothing, yet Boris Johnson was assuring the British public that AUKUS meant hundreds and hundreds of well-paid jobs in Britain’s north. We made a mistake choosing the British Type 26 frigate, which still is not in service even in Britain and is two years behind schedule and counting. Just imagine a Brit submarine saga.
A cynical interpretation might be that the Liberals never explained, championed or campaigned for their own choice of the French sub. Choosing Marise Payne and then Linda Reynolds as defence ministers was grotesque, by Turnbull and Morrison respectively, as neither could carry the debate or the portfolio
So the government has solved only the problem that its own incompetent, lazy and inexplicable failure to champion its own defence programs brought about, but so far has substituted nothing concrete for it.
The result is likely no submarine capability for us at all, except museum piece Collins boats and whatever submarine visits the Americans or Brits send along. We should have kept the French subs going, perhaps at a reduced number of six or even three, then gone nuclear in an orderly way.
Instead we have once more followed our own traditions of grand announcement leading to grand shambles."
NoCookies | The Australian
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2021
- Messages
- 2,137
- Likes
- 13,749
Honestly, the European whining about AUKUS is getting a little tiresome now.
What existential danger is Europe in, while being protected by the USA/NATO? Russia is assumed to be the great enemy despite the disappearance of the USSR which was the main force destroying Nazism in WW2, while the Germans allegedly lost but are now top dogs.
US nukes in Germany and other nations are if anything a target rather than a protection. NATO is a tool for continuing US domination, not helping Europe or anyone else to be safe. Many people in Europe would be absolutely overjoyed if NATO would be disbanded and the US would leave the continent and stop making it a target for Russian nukes.
The "Atlanticists" who have prevented this are America's planted tools, paid and prospering like birds cleaning the teeth of crocodiles. NATO was created to "keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". It's America's tool, not Europe's.
Europe doesn't spend a lot on defense because it doesn't have an enormous MIC to keep in clover. Nobody is going to invade Europe -- except immigrants, which is a problem of a different nature -- nor are European nations going to war with each other. Which is why it's hard for Europeans to work up any enthusiasm for NATO's expansionist agenda.
In comparison to the US, European MIC is miniscule. And more importantly, the power and influence of their MIC is MUCH less than the US version. This also accounts for the fact that they spend far less by %age on their "defense" than America does and have money to spend on esoteric things like healthcare, retirement, infrastructure, education, etc.
Now, it is true that whenever anyone anywhere asks for US defense assistance, the US is always there. After all this is America's stock in trade. So, yes, the US should leave. But it won't. Not voluntarily. There is "market share" at stake.
And by exploiting this fact, when the US fucks over countries like it did to France, is the solution whining about it? No, the solution is to take over responsibility for your own security.
No more purchasing armaments/war machines from the US MIC. Commence trade with Russia, and to some extent China as they are neighbors. No more NATO adventures. Develop European armed forces. Stop using the US$ for international trade and stop using the Bank for International Settlements(BIS) which is controlled by the US.
Develop a new European equivalent to the BIS not reliant on the US$ or the US banking system. Seriously look at the Chinese Belt and Road initiative and how to use it to European advantage. Close all US armed forces bases in all European countries including the UK and get rid of all nuclear weapons controlled by the US. Ignore all US sanctions that the US applies to other countries as they are extraterritorial sanctions and are to be ignored.
Otherwise individual European countries can scream like a jilted lover when the USA dumps them(one country, in this case France) for another prostitute(in this case, Australia).
What existential danger is Europe in, while being protected by the USA/NATO? Russia is assumed to be the great enemy despite the disappearance of the USSR which was the main force destroying Nazism in WW2, while the Germans allegedly lost but are now top dogs.
US nukes in Germany and other nations are if anything a target rather than a protection. NATO is a tool for continuing US domination, not helping Europe or anyone else to be safe. Many people in Europe would be absolutely overjoyed if NATO would be disbanded and the US would leave the continent and stop making it a target for Russian nukes.
The "Atlanticists" who have prevented this are America's planted tools, paid and prospering like birds cleaning the teeth of crocodiles. NATO was created to "keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". It's America's tool, not Europe's.
Europe doesn't spend a lot on defense because it doesn't have an enormous MIC to keep in clover. Nobody is going to invade Europe -- except immigrants, which is a problem of a different nature -- nor are European nations going to war with each other. Which is why it's hard for Europeans to work up any enthusiasm for NATO's expansionist agenda.
In comparison to the US, European MIC is miniscule. And more importantly, the power and influence of their MIC is MUCH less than the US version. This also accounts for the fact that they spend far less by %age on their "defense" than America does and have money to spend on esoteric things like healthcare, retirement, infrastructure, education, etc.
Now, it is true that whenever anyone anywhere asks for US defense assistance, the US is always there. After all this is America's stock in trade. So, yes, the US should leave. But it won't. Not voluntarily. There is "market share" at stake.
And by exploiting this fact, when the US fucks over countries like it did to France, is the solution whining about it? No, the solution is to take over responsibility for your own security.
No more purchasing armaments/war machines from the US MIC. Commence trade with Russia, and to some extent China as they are neighbors. No more NATO adventures. Develop European armed forces. Stop using the US$ for international trade and stop using the Bank for International Settlements(BIS) which is controlled by the US.
Develop a new European equivalent to the BIS not reliant on the US$ or the US banking system. Seriously look at the Chinese Belt and Road initiative and how to use it to European advantage. Close all US armed forces bases in all European countries including the UK and get rid of all nuclear weapons controlled by the US. Ignore all US sanctions that the US applies to other countries as they are extraterritorial sanctions and are to be ignored.
Otherwise individual European countries can scream like a jilted lover when the USA dumps them(one country, in this case France) for another prostitute(in this case, Australia).
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2021
- Messages
- 2,137
- Likes
- 13,749
Yes. Operation Meetinghouse.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,556
China’s new aircraft carrier underlines need for the Aukus pact
www.theguardian.com
China’s new aircraft carrier underlines need for the Aukus pact
Analysis: As the world’s largest navy tries to push it back in the Pacific, the US requires allies in the region
www.theguardian.com
HitmanBlood
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 1,459
- Likes
- 12,175
This idiot is calling India safe because India is a peninsula surrounded by water from three sides, by this logic Australia must be safest in Asia as it is an island surrounded by water from all sides. Also idiot continues Himalayas are impenetrable fortress and no power in world would even think of invading India. Well that idiot must have forgotten 1962 Indo-China war. Also he has conveniently forgotten the fact that India is surrounded by hostile neighbours.Observations by
on Quad written Former PM
Paul Keating
The AUKUS agreement presents Australia as a defeatist nation
amp.smh.com.au
China is building string of perls in Indian Ocean, artificial islands with military installations in South China Sea. China is daily threating all its neighbours and even Australia. All this is mentioned no where in this article.This idiot even goes ahead and paints India as a backstaber country and Japan will chicken out at the last moment. Really? Both India and Japan are at highest risk in confrontation with China unlike his Island nation.
While bad mouthing US, Japan and India he has nothing but praise for China. He says Chinese brought 20% humanity out from poverty and has never threatened US nor has shown any desire.The article reached its lowest when he quoted quoted a known anti-India, pro-china warmonger, Kissinger.
This Idiot former PM hails from Australian Labour Party which is openly pro China. It is the same Labour party that unitarily exited from QUAD without even consulting other countries. This backstabbing of Australia became reson for destruction of QUAD 1.0 and resulted into stronger Chinese hegemony in Asia.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,556
Another Australian PM Tony Abott, Liberal Party, strongly pushing for the inclusion of Taiwan in Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Pact...
Tony Abbott says China tensions should not prevent Taiwan joining trade pact
www.theguardian.com
Tony Abbott says China tensions should not prevent Taiwan joining trade pact
Tony Abbott says China tensions should not prevent Taiwan joining trade pact
The former PM calls on the Australian government to urge the US to rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership and backs the UK to join
www.theguardian.com
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,556
Another interesting viewpoint from another former Australian PM Kevin Rudd, Socialist....
"A Cold War with China Is Probable and Not Just Possible"
China presents a significant threat, believes former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Which is why, he says, the West must work together rather than engage in the kind of bickering triggered by the recent submarine deal between Australia and the United States.
www.spiegel.de
"A Cold War with China Is Probable and Not Just Possible"
China presents a significant threat, believes former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Which is why, he says, the West must work together rather than engage in the kind of bickering triggered by the recent submarine deal between Australia and the United States.
Former Australian PM Kevin Rudd: "A Cold War with China Is Probable and Not Just Possible"
China presents a significant threat, believes former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Which is why, he says, the West must work together rather than engage in the kind of bickering triggered by the recent submarine deal between Australia and the United States.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,556
Astute vs Virginia: Which navy has the best nuclear attack submarine?
Astute vs Virginia: head-to-head
The Royal Navy’s Astute class designed by BAE Systems Maritime and the US Navy’s Virginia class built by General Dynamics Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding. Both are among the best nuclear-powered attack submarine classes in the world. We put them head-to-head in the ring on factors like size, speed, armament, technology and cost.
Round 1: Size
The Royal Navy’s Astute-class of submarines is currently the tenth-biggest submarine class in the world, with a surfaced displacement of 7,000t to7,400t, and a submerged displacement of 7,400t to 7,800t.
At a length of 97m (318ft 3in) and a beam of 11.3m (37ft 1in), the Astute-class is smaller than US Navy’s Virginia class.
The Virginia class has a displacement of 7,900t, making it the ninth-largest submarine when comparing all submarine variants. It is longer than the Astute class, at 115m (377ft) but also narrower – with a beam measurement of 10m (34ft).
Winner: Tie
Round 2: Speed and endurance
The Astute is powered by the latest Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactor (PWR 2) design, the Core H, which eliminates the need for refuelling, and means that the sub’s nuclear reactor only requires one refit instead of the traditional two refits throughout its service life.
Astute has unlimited endurance and can provide unlimited air and water supply for crew members. However, the amount of provisions carried for the crew typically last up to 90 days.
Meanwhile, the Virginia class uses an S9G reactor, a ninth-generation core designed by General Electric. Again, the Virginia class can go indefinitely in terms of propulsion, only limited by food and maintenance requirements.
The Royal Navy’s Astute class has a top speed of 30kn (56km/h; 35m/h) when fully submerged. The Virginia class is slower, reaching speeds of around 25kn (46km/h; 29m/h).
Winner: Astute
Round 3: Weapons
Being attack submarines, both classes are naturally armed to the teeth with the latest maritime weaponry.
Astute-class submarines come with six 21 in torpedo tubes capable of firing Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes. It also launches Raytheon Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles for land-attack operations. The Astute class offers storage for up to 38 weapons.
The Virginia class is packed with more of a punch, incorporating 12 Tomahawk vertical launching system tubes and four 5 21 in torpedo tubes for the Mk-48 torpedo. The latest Block V boat generation incorporates the new Virginia payload module (VPM), which boosts the number of torpedoes and missiles it can carry from 37 to 65.
Winner: Virginia
Round 4: EW countermeasures and sensors
The Royal Navy’s Astute class electronic warfare (EW) array incorporates electronic support measures (ESM), sonars and decoys. The ESM system is Thales Sensors Outfit UAP(4), which has two multi-function antennae mounted on non-hull penetrating optronic masts.
It also uses Eddystone Communications’ band ESM system that provides enhanced communications, signal intercept, recognition, direction-finding and monitoring.
The main sonar suite is the Thales 2076 integrated passive/active search and attack sonar with bow, intercept, flank and towed capabilities, while Raytheon was contracted to provide its Successor IFF friend or foe naval transponder system.
Virginia is fitted with Northrop Grumman’s AN/WLY-1 acoustic countermeasures system, which provides range and bearing data. Lockheed Martin is also developing a mast-mounted AN/BLQ-10 electronic support measure for the US Navy’s Virginia-class submarines. The AN/BLQ-10 provides full spectrum radar processing, enhanced situation assessment and an automatic threat warning system.
Its sonar suite includes a range of active and passive sonars, two Kollmorgen AN/BVS-1 photonic masts instead of optical periscopes, and the Boeing long-term mine reconnaissance system and Northrop anti-submarine warfare sonar system.
Winner: Tie
Round 5: Cost
While it is difficult to get an accurate unit cost for defence equipment, one Royal Navy Astute-class submarine was last priced at more than £1.4bn ($1.83bn), according to the UK National Audit Office’s Major Projects Report 2015.
Meanwhile, the Virginia class is more expensive. The Congressional Research Service report of October 2018 priced standard Virginia-class submarines at $2.7bn, with the upgraded VPM model costing around $3.2bn per unit.
Winner: Astute
Final bell
The Astute vs Virginia contest has ended with both submarines matching each other blow-for-blow on each of the comparative measures, but on the bell, Astute edges ahead on affordability.
www.naval-technology.com
Astute vs Virginia: head-to-head
The Royal Navy’s Astute class designed by BAE Systems Maritime and the US Navy’s Virginia class built by General Dynamics Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding. Both are among the best nuclear-powered attack submarine classes in the world. We put them head-to-head in the ring on factors like size, speed, armament, technology and cost.
Round 1: Size
The Royal Navy’s Astute-class of submarines is currently the tenth-biggest submarine class in the world, with a surfaced displacement of 7,000t to7,400t, and a submerged displacement of 7,400t to 7,800t.
At a length of 97m (318ft 3in) and a beam of 11.3m (37ft 1in), the Astute-class is smaller than US Navy’s Virginia class.
The Virginia class has a displacement of 7,900t, making it the ninth-largest submarine when comparing all submarine variants. It is longer than the Astute class, at 115m (377ft) but also narrower – with a beam measurement of 10m (34ft).
Winner: Tie
Round 2: Speed and endurance
The Astute is powered by the latest Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactor (PWR 2) design, the Core H, which eliminates the need for refuelling, and means that the sub’s nuclear reactor only requires one refit instead of the traditional two refits throughout its service life.
Astute has unlimited endurance and can provide unlimited air and water supply for crew members. However, the amount of provisions carried for the crew typically last up to 90 days.
Meanwhile, the Virginia class uses an S9G reactor, a ninth-generation core designed by General Electric. Again, the Virginia class can go indefinitely in terms of propulsion, only limited by food and maintenance requirements.
The Royal Navy’s Astute class has a top speed of 30kn (56km/h; 35m/h) when fully submerged. The Virginia class is slower, reaching speeds of around 25kn (46km/h; 29m/h).
Winner: Astute
Round 3: Weapons
Being attack submarines, both classes are naturally armed to the teeth with the latest maritime weaponry.
Astute-class submarines come with six 21 in torpedo tubes capable of firing Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes. It also launches Raytheon Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles for land-attack operations. The Astute class offers storage for up to 38 weapons.
The Virginia class is packed with more of a punch, incorporating 12 Tomahawk vertical launching system tubes and four 5 21 in torpedo tubes for the Mk-48 torpedo. The latest Block V boat generation incorporates the new Virginia payload module (VPM), which boosts the number of torpedoes and missiles it can carry from 37 to 65.
Winner: Virginia
Round 4: EW countermeasures and sensors
The Royal Navy’s Astute class electronic warfare (EW) array incorporates electronic support measures (ESM), sonars and decoys. The ESM system is Thales Sensors Outfit UAP(4), which has two multi-function antennae mounted on non-hull penetrating optronic masts.
It also uses Eddystone Communications’ band ESM system that provides enhanced communications, signal intercept, recognition, direction-finding and monitoring.
The main sonar suite is the Thales 2076 integrated passive/active search and attack sonar with bow, intercept, flank and towed capabilities, while Raytheon was contracted to provide its Successor IFF friend or foe naval transponder system.
Virginia is fitted with Northrop Grumman’s AN/WLY-1 acoustic countermeasures system, which provides range and bearing data. Lockheed Martin is also developing a mast-mounted AN/BLQ-10 electronic support measure for the US Navy’s Virginia-class submarines. The AN/BLQ-10 provides full spectrum radar processing, enhanced situation assessment and an automatic threat warning system.
Its sonar suite includes a range of active and passive sonars, two Kollmorgen AN/BVS-1 photonic masts instead of optical periscopes, and the Boeing long-term mine reconnaissance system and Northrop anti-submarine warfare sonar system.
Winner: Tie
Round 5: Cost
While it is difficult to get an accurate unit cost for defence equipment, one Royal Navy Astute-class submarine was last priced at more than £1.4bn ($1.83bn), according to the UK National Audit Office’s Major Projects Report 2015.
Meanwhile, the Virginia class is more expensive. The Congressional Research Service report of October 2018 priced standard Virginia-class submarines at $2.7bn, with the upgraded VPM model costing around $3.2bn per unit.
Winner: Astute
Final bell
The Astute vs Virginia contest has ended with both submarines matching each other blow-for-blow on each of the comparative measures, but on the bell, Astute edges ahead on affordability.
Astute vs Virginia: which navy has the best nuclear attack submarine?
The Royal Navy's Astute class and the US Navy's Virginia class are some of the best attack submarines in the world. Astute vs Virginia - which is better?
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 31,905
- Likes
- 147,985
kevin Rudd is a CCP lackey, useful only for recognising CCP narratives aimed at western world.Another interesting viewpoint from another former Australian PM Kevin Rudd, Socialist....
"A Cold War with China Is Probable and Not Just Possible"
China presents a significant threat, believes former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Which is why, he says, the West must work together rather than engage in the kind of bickering triggered by the recent submarine deal between Australia and the United States.
Former Australian PM Kevin Rudd: "A Cold War with China Is Probable and Not Just Possible"
China presents a significant threat, believes former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Which is why, he says, the West must work together rather than engage in the kind of bickering triggered by the recent submarine deal between Australia and the United States.
His master’s voice.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,556
Perhaps when he was the PM he had a more conciliatory opinion towards China due to trade. But now since he is out of power, and perhaps in a nod to popular Australian public sentiment against China, he is clearer in his criticism of China. Overall, he is not as anti-Chinese as the Liberal and Conservative PMs.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 31,905
- Likes
- 147,985
his think tank Asia society sole purpose is to ensure CCP policies look palatable to western audience.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
NEW QUAD [ India, Israel, USA, UAE ]- News and Discussions | Defence & Strategy | 25 | |
|
PM Modi In USA 2021 - UNGA, in-person QUAD meeting | Foreign Relations | 188 | |
|
U.S., Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan to form quad group | Pakistan | 0 | |
| D | How to Push Back against an Aggressive China: Enter the 'Quad' | China | 14 |
