• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Australia To Become Forward Deployed Submarine Base of US & Allies Against China

Tangmo

Tangmo

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
36,517
Reaction score
13,547
Location
Florida The Armband State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have arrived at the San Diego Naval Base to meet tomorrow with Potus Biden and announce a $100bn program to build, host, deploy and repair nuclear powered submarines in Australia. This builds on the $40bn purchase by Australia of 10 USN Virginia class nuclear powered submarines to be announced tomorrow, 5 now and 5 later. Australia will be provided the industrial base to itself build US submarines that are sorely needed due to labor shortages in the US.

This is all under the AUKUS Australia-United Kingdom-US partnership agreed in 2020 and that commits the three nations to maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific region. The agreement is meant to lead to the construction of nuclear-powered submarines in Australia. The Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan released last year forecast submarines being produced at a rate of 1.76 to 2.24 per year and forecast the fleet to grow to between 60 to 69 nuclear attack submarines according to reports. The Navy has only 49 of the undersea boats needed. China has 74 subs total. So, alas, we're finally doing something big about this.

Australian workers will relocate to US shipyards to observe and train then to perform the work. The longer term plan is to provide Australia with the capacity to build 'em there, and to fully service the subs in Australia. The new nuclear powered US subs to Australia will initially be commanded by a US Navy captain of the boat with an Australian executive officer. The US is expanding its forces in the Philippines as well. It's building a completely new defensive upgrade on Guam. Australia is getting six nuclear capable B-52s as it is plus more US Marines and now US Army to Darwin.

San Diego is home to Submarine Squadron 11 that has four Los Angeles class hunter killer submarines, which can launch different types of missiles including Tomahawk cruise missiles. They do not stock nuclear weapons. The AUKUS agreement of 2020 needed fleshing out and this is a first big step in that direction, the joint leaders announcement being expected tomorrow. While the Boyz in Beijing are furious already wait till we hear 'em tomorrow ha.
 
Clearly...a submarine base in Australia = "defense" of the USA.

LOL. Just kidding.
 
Tangmo said:
The US is expanding its forces in the Philippines as well. It's building a completely new defensive upgrade on Guam. Australia is getting six nuclear capable B-52s as it is plus more US Marines and now US Army to Darwin.
Click to expand...

Clearly this is a "provocation" by China. 🤣
 
Tangmo said:
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have arrived at the San Diego Naval Base to meet tomorrow with Potus Biden and announce a $100bn program to build, host, deploy and repair nuclear powered submarines in Australia. This builds on the $40bn purchase by Australia of 10 USN Virginia class nuclear powered submarines to be announced tomorrow, 5 now and 5 later. Australia will be provided the industrial base to itself build US submarines that are sorely needed due to labor shortages in the US.

This is all under the AUKUS Australia-United Kingdom-US partnership agreed in 2020 and that commits the three nations to maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific region. The agreement is meant to lead to the construction of nuclear-powered submarines in Australia. The Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan released last year forecast submarines being produced at a rate of 1.76 to 2.24 per year and forecast the fleet to grow to between 60 to 69 nuclear attack submarines according to reports. The Navy has only 49 of the undersea boats needed. China has 74 subs total. So, alas, we're finally doing something big about this.

Australian workers will relocate to US shipyards to observe and train then to perform the work. The longer term plan is to provide Australia with the capacity to build 'em there, and to fully service the subs in Australia. The new nuclear powered US subs to Australia will initially be commanded by a US Navy captain of the boat with an Australian executive officer. The US is expanding its forces in the Philippines as well. It's building a completely new defensive upgrade on Guam. Australia is getting six nuclear capable B-52s as it is plus more US Marines and now US Army to Darwin.

San Diego is home to Submarine Squadron 11 that has four Los Angeles class hunter killer submarines, which can launch different types of missiles including Tomahawk cruise missiles. They do not stock nuclear weapons. The AUKUS agreement of 2020 needed fleshing out and this is a first big step in that direction, the joint leaders announcement being expected tomorrow. While the Boyz in Beijing are furious already wait till we hear 'em tomorrow ha.
Click to expand...
After the US stepping into the Australia/France submarine deal are you surprised at this outcome?
 
mrjurrs said:
After the US stepping into the Australia/France submarine deal are you surprised at this outcome?
Click to expand...
In no way surprised nor should I myself be surprised. This is the deal decided in 2020 and it's a huge deal that now has the beef put into it.

The deciding reason Australia chose France over Japan for its new subs that got cancelled anyway was to minimize antagonizing the CCP DictatorTyrants in Beijing. It was the French Barracuda subs or the Japanese Soryu subs so Oz chickened out for the French provider. It actually wasn't a bad decision by Oz to go with France given France is the only European country to maintain a Pacific Naval Fleet. It's not like French made subs to Oz were going to be alone out there. Oz was going to get some new industrial capacity from France too, to finish building the Barracudas. That's all awash now anyway for France.

So US-UK made Oz a $100bn bucks deal Canberra couldn't refuse. Oz buys ten US nuclear powered attack subs and gets a nuclear industry on its soil in return plus becomes the forward deployed home port of US and allied subs to include France of course. Japan has for years been the forward deployed home port of the Reagan carrier strike group of the USN 7th Fleet in Hawaii. It keeps the Boyz in Beijing reasonably honest, as far as that goes anyhow.

If this rankles you guys along with Beijing too, it's a sure thing Japan will also base in Australia. Tokyo has indeed just committed to combat troops to Oz with US & Oz forces, this being the first stationing of Japanese combat troops abroad in 80 years. Indeed, it's getting hard to know who's more upset, Beijing or you guys.
 
Tangmo said:
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have arrived at the San Diego Naval Base to meet tomorrow with Potus Biden and announce a $100bn program to build, host, deploy and repair nuclear powered submarines in Australia. This builds on the $40bn purchase by Australia of 10 USN Virginia class nuclear powered submarines to be announced tomorrow, 5 now and 5 later. Australia will be provided the industrial base to itself build US submarines that are sorely needed due to labor shortages in the US.

This is all under the AUKUS Australia-United Kingdom-US partnership agreed in 2020 and that commits the three nations to maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific region. The agreement is meant to lead to the construction of nuclear-powered submarines in Australia. The Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan released last year forecast submarines being produced at a rate of 1.76 to 2.24 per year and forecast the fleet to grow to between 60 to 69 nuclear attack submarines according to reports. The Navy has only 49 of the undersea boats needed. China has 74 subs total. So, alas, we're finally doing something big about this.

Australian workers will relocate to US shipyards to observe and train then to perform the work. The longer term plan is to provide Australia with the capacity to build 'em there, and to fully service the subs in Australia. The new nuclear powered US subs to Australia will initially be commanded by a US Navy captain of the boat with an Australian executive officer. The US is expanding its forces in the Philippines as well. It's building a completely new defensive upgrade on Guam. Australia is getting six nuclear capable B-52s as it is plus more US Marines and now US Army to Darwin.

San Diego is home to Submarine Squadron 11 that has four Los Angeles class hunter killer submarines, which can launch different types of missiles including Tomahawk cruise missiles. They do not stock nuclear weapons. The AUKUS agreement of 2020 needed fleshing out and this is a first big step in that direction, the joint leaders announcement being expected tomorrow. While the Boyz in Beijing are furious already wait till we hear 'em tomorrow ha.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of thing that makes me proud of Joe.

He's America first in reasoned, learned way. Not a dumb **** isolationist.
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have arrived at the San Diego Naval Base to meet tomorrow with Potus Biden and announce a $100bn program to build, host, deploy and repair nuclear powered submarines in Australia. This builds on the $40bn purchase by Australia of 10 USN Virginia class nuclear powered submarines to be announced tomorrow, 5 now and 5 later. Australia will be provided the industrial base to itself build US submarines that are sorely needed due to labor shortages in the US.

This is all under the AUKUS Australia-United Kingdom-US partnership agreed in 2020 and that commits the three nations to maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific region. The agreement is meant to lead to the construction of nuclear-powered submarines in Australia. The Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan released last year forecast submarines being produced at a rate of 1.76 to 2.24 per year and forecast the fleet to grow to between 60 to 69 nuclear attack submarines according to reports. The Navy has only 49 of the undersea boats needed. China has 74 subs total. So, alas, we're finally doing something big about this.

Australian workers will relocate to US shipyards to observe and train then to perform the work. The longer term plan is to provide Australia with the capacity to build 'em there, and to fully service the subs in Australia. The new nuclear powered US subs to Australia will initially be commanded by a US Navy captain of the boat with an Australian executive officer. The US is expanding its forces in the Philippines as well. It's building a completely new defensive upgrade on Guam. Australia is getting six nuclear capable B-52s as it is plus more US Marines and now US Army to Darwin.

San Diego is home to Submarine Squadron 11 that has four Los Angeles class hunter killer submarines, which can launch different types of missiles including Tomahawk cruise missiles. They do not stock nuclear weapons. The AUKUS agreement of 2020 needed fleshing out and this is a first big step in that direction, the joint leaders announcement being expected tomorrow. While the Boyz in Beijing are furious already wait till we hear 'em tomorrow ha.
Click to expand...
The US and NATO has also taken notice with Russian subs getting busier.



www.newsweek.com

Russia's submarine strategy—how Putin plans to rule beneath the waves

As NATO members sound the alarm, an expert tells Newsweek Russia's current submarine activity is as dangerous as Cold War levels in terms of sheer volume.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
Over the past several years, Moscow has been producing a series of submarines that have the capability to reach the most critical targets in the U.S. or continental Europe, and now NATO members are increasingly sounding the alarm over the activities of Vladimir Putin's submarine fleet.


www.newsweek.com

Russia nuclear submarines deployed off U.S. coast spark alarm

Moscow has been producing a series of submarines that have the capability to reach the most critical targets in the United States or continental Europe.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
As Russian President Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine continues to rage, United States commanders and military observers are sounding the alarm about the activity of Russia's submarine fleet thousands of miles away, off the U.S. coast.
 
SecNavy Carlos del Toro is Biden's guy in this that was getting nowhere during Trump's last year in office. The AUKUS deal was signed in 2020 and the Aussie deal with France was made in 2016, then blown up by the AUKUS arrangement. UK PM Sunak stopped in Paris to give warm milk to Macron on his way to San Diego where he is right now. Indeed, all of this and the rest of it is just impossible if Oz went with the French deal.

As pointed out by the independent website Defense News "The U.S. sea service has its eyes on the near-term benefit of being able to base and repair U.S. Virginia-class attack submarines in Australian ports. Del Toro told Defense News last month AUKUS is all about “being able to repair our submarines much further out, being able to build them in Australia as well, too, and create that much more presence in the Indo-Pacific where we need it the most.”

Del Toro later said at the National Press Club "The U.S. Navy envisions a submarine hub in Australia from which the service can oversee the entire range of undersea activities in the Asia-Pacific region, from boat production to repairs to missions." His comments, made ahead of a major announcement [tomorrow] about the U.S.-U.K.-Australian submarine partnership dubbed AUKUS, reveal how Washington views its future relationship with Australia as a key foothold in closer proximity to rival China.

“The ability of the United States Navy to be able to do forward-based repair and maintenance is critical to us; it’s part of why we’re actually proceeding down the AUKUS path as well, too, with regards to submarine capability in the future.” This comes as the U.S. Navy has conducted an auxiliary ship repair in [Strategic Partner] India and is now eyeing yards in [formal treaty ally] the Philippines and [Strategic Partner] Singapore for future Navy ship repair periods, Del Toro said. The United States in February announced an expansion to an agreement with the Philippines that allows for greater access to bases there for training and prepositioning equipment for certain missions like humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

www.defensenews.com

In AUKUS, Navy eyes a full-service submarine garage in Asia-Pacific

Leaders are slated to announce details of the landmark agreement next week, as some U.S. lawmakers are wary of the industrial practicalities.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com


A decade ago Strategic Partner Singapore built a new docking and pier facility for US aircraft carriers port calls that until then had to ferry sailors from ship to shore. Vietnam has reconstructed its huge naval base at Cam Ranh Bay to accommodate aircraft carriers of the USN, UK, France, India and now Japan. The Chinese navy is unwelcome in either port. Methinks Subic Bay revived in the Phils will include carrier facilities too.
 
It seems that Australia are to buy 5 SSN-R which the UK are in the process of designing to eventually replace the Astute Class subs we're building now.
 
I like that AUKUS is pronounced Orcas. :)

I suspect that buying nuclear missile CAPABLE boats is a clever way for Australia to keep that option open. Currently the Australian people are suspicious even of nuclear power (they have a medical reactor but no power plants) so I imagine they're strongly against nuclear weapons for Australia. At this time.

Before investing a lot in submarine bases though, I think the Aus Federal Government should consider what happened with Yucca Mountain. The Nevada government was happy to take Federal money to build a facility, but then NIMBY cut in and they stiffed the Feds on storing nuclear waste there. Australia has a small coastal territory (Federal land at Jervis Bay) and should build the submarine base there. There's also the Northern Territory, but unlike Jervis Bay it is conceivable that NT could become a State.
 
Ug make hammer said:
I like that AUKUS is pronounced Orcas. :)

I suspect that buying nuclear missile CAPABLE boats is a clever way for Australia to keep that option open. Currently the Australian people are suspicious even of nuclear power (they have a medical reactor but no power plants) so I imagine they're strongly against nuclear weapons for Australia. At this time.

Before investing a lot in submarine bases though, I think the Aus Federal Government should consider what happened with Yucca Mountain. The Nevada government was happy to take Federal money to build a facility, but then NIMBY cut in and they stiffed the Feds on storing nuclear waste there. Australia has a small coastal territory (Federal land at Jervis Bay) and should build the submarine base there. There's also the Northern Territory, but unlike Jervis Bay it is conceivable that NT could become a State.
Click to expand...

It probobly doesn't help that the UK used Australia as a nuclear weapons testing area.
 
Peter said:
It seems that Australia are to buy 5 SSN-R which the UK are in the process of designing to eventually replace the Astute Class subs we're building now.
Click to expand...

But before then, at least 3 Virginia class from the US.
 
Peter said:
It probobly doesn't help that the UK used Australia as a nuclear weapons testing area.
Click to expand...

There's so much of it, and some Aborigines getting irradiated didn't bother most Australians. Maybe it does in retrospect 🤷‍♂️

New Zealanders are far more anti-nuclear, because they empathise with Pacific people more. The US and France both tested a lot in the Pacific.
 
Tangmo said:
Clearly, your safe zone exists on the back of a postage stamp.

Your world.

There are no horizons in it. So there's nothing external of your tiny stamp.
Click to expand...

China is "provoking" the USA by sailing their ships in the South China Sea. LMMFAO!! :LOL:
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
China is "provoking" the USA by sailing their ships in the South China Sea. LMMFAO!! :LOL:
Click to expand...
The ten governments of the Association of South East Asian Nations ASEAN that border the SCS and that had been an economic and social club since the 1950s has voted to establish a military alliance.

ASEAN cited the militarized natural and artificial islands of Beijing throughout the Sea and Beijings 9-dash line that steals the EEZ of the member states that border the Sea, namely the Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, and that reduces the Gulf of Thailand into a backwater puddle of China. This is in a blatant and arrogant rejection by Beijing of the unanimous ruling by the Court of International Arbitration in The Hague that said this and more is a total violation of the UN Convention on the International Law of the Sea.

The international sea lanes of the SCS carry $3.8 Trillion bucks of trade to include oil from the ME to the SCS countries -- plus to Taiwan, South Korea, Japan. This geostrategic energy situation is familiar because it relates directly to Russia, energy blackmail, Europe, Ukraine, war, NATO. And the demise of Russia.

You meanwhile have gone down the rabbit hole of Neville Chamberlain to new and unprecedented depths -- you're likely to pop out in China one of these dayze. If you haven't already that is. The only reason Beijing has not seized the Scarborough Shoal in the Phils EEZ off Luzon island and Manila -- to close its circle in the Sea -- is that the US reminded the Chinese the Phils is a US formal defense treaty ally and that Beijing would be spanked and sent to bed without dinner. Spanked, yes. Scarborough btw is named after a shipwreck.
 
Tangmo said:
In no way surprised nor should I myself be surprised. This is the deal decided in 2020 and it's a huge deal that now has the beef put into it.

The deciding reason Australia chose France over Japan for its new subs that got cancelled anyway was to minimize antagonizing the CCP DictatorTyrants in Beijing. It was the French Barracuda subs or the Japanese Soryu subs so Oz chickened out for the French provider. It actually wasn't a bad decision by Oz to go with France given France is the only European country to maintain a Pacific Naval Fleet. It's not like French made subs to Oz were going to be alone out there. Oz was going to get some new industrial capacity from France too, to finish building the Barracudas. That's all awash now anyway for France.

So US-UK made Oz a $100bn bucks deal Canberra couldn't refuse. Oz buys ten US nuclear powered attack subs and gets a nuclear industry on its soil in return plus becomes the forward deployed home port of US and allied subs to include France of course. Japan has for years been the forward deployed home port of the Reagan carrier strike group of the USN 7th Fleet in Hawaii. It keeps the Boyz in Beijing reasonably honest, as far as that goes anyhow.

If this rankles you guys along with Beijing too, it's a sure thing Japan will also base in Australia. Tokyo has indeed just committed to combat troops to Oz with US & Oz forces, this being the first stationing of Japanese combat troops abroad in 80 years. Indeed, it's getting hard to know who's more upset, Beijing or you guys.
Click to expand...
Australia backstopped Allied forces in the Pacific in WW2, looks like it may do it again.
 
Things in Oz are pretty clear about this. Nuclear powered subs yes, nuclear armed subs no. There's no plan under AUKUS or anywhere for Australia to have nuclear armed subs.

I think one proposal of the 18 month study that produced the agreement to be signed on the 13th at the San Diego submarine base is joint US-Aussie crews on the first US Virginia class attack nuclear powered subs. There would be a USN captain of each boat and an Aussie executive officer having a combined US-AUS crew. Makes sense it does for the first subs.

70% of Australians support nuclear submarines under AUKUS​

Country's public increasingly views Russia and China as threats in new poll

Australia's plan to acquire nuclear submarines under the AUKUS trilateral security partnership enjoys support from 70% of the country's public, a poll shows, as a growing number of people view Russia and China as threats. The results of an annual survey by the Lowy Institute, a Sydney-based think tank, come after Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. unveiled AUKUS.

This contrasts sharply with the general antinuclear sentiment in Australia. A full 63% of respondents in the poll opposed Australia acquiring nuclear weapons. Lowy asked respondents to rank a list of potential threats to Australia's vital interests over the next decade. "Russia's foreign policy" was picked as a critical threat -- the most serious kind -- by 68% in the latest poll, which follows Russia's invasion of Ukraine. China's foreign policy was seen as a critical threat by 65%. This edged a military clash between the U.S. and China over Taiwan, which came in at 64% of respondents. Climate change was regarded as a critical threat by 62%.

asia.nikkei.com

70% of Australians support nuclear submarines under AUKUS

Country's public increasingly views Russia and China as threats in new poll
asia.nikkei.com asia.nikkei.com




As to New Zealand which is a nuclear free zone it has clarified its clarification about US Navy ships in its waters. :unsure:

In 2021 the USN Destroyer Howard was welcomed to NZ by the prime minister. This ended the NZ prohibition on USN ships in its waters since 1985. The USN was banned in NZ waters because NZ is a nuclear free zone and the USN doesn't disclose which of its ships is nuclear powered. So NZ banned 'em all.

But in 2021 NZ invited the USN to send a ship -- any ship -- to visit. The US Indo-Pacific command at Pearl Harbor Hawaii sent the Howard from its forward deployed home port at the Yokosuka Joint US-Japan naval base in Tokyo Bay. Now NZ may need to clarify its clarification of 2021 also that Australian future nuclear powered subs of AUKUS are banned already from NZ waters. :rolleyes:
 
mrjurrs said:
Australia backstopped Allied forces in the Pacific in WW2, looks like it may do it again.
Click to expand...

The costs to invade Australia were never worth it, for a country with no oil or rubber. Unlike the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) Australia was an independent country and would not readily exchange one foreign ruler for another.

Australian leaders never say so, but they must be worried about Indonesia. It's the fourth most populous country on Earth (five times the population of Australia). Needing 5% GDP growth and with huge poverty problems, Indonesia can't afford a world class military ... but if China starts donating or selling below cost, Indonesia could be a serious threat.

Australia doesn't just need submarines, OTH radar, missiles and all the good stuff. It needs to be a good customer to the US, to remind the US that Australia has contributed to every war where the Americans asked. Former Prime Minister John Howard called this "paying the premiums" on Australia's defense "insurance."

Frankly Australia shouldn't be buying arms from ANYONE but the US. Because of where it is, the only modern military power that Australia can turn to is the US. If Japan would get off the bench, they'd be a valuable ally too.
 
mrjurrs said:
Australia backstopped Allied forces in the Pacific in WW2, looks like it may do it again.
Click to expand...
The future looks good indeed...





A minute's worth of remarks as shown and delivered to the cadets by the Australian Navy Commodore are a good summary of it. The graduating class of Trinity Boarding School Melbourne with swords makes its final pass in review before heading out as well prepared indeed. Military cadet is voluntary among the schools student population and is supported by the Ministry of Defense.
 
Tangmo said:
Things in Oz are pretty clear about this. Nuclear powered subs yes, nuclear armed subs no. There's no plan under AUKUS or anywhere for Australia to have nuclear armed subs.

I think one proposal of the 18 month study that produced the agreement to be signed on the 13th at the San Diego submarine base is joint US-Aussie crews on the first US Virginia class attack nuclear powered subs. There would be a USN captain of each boat and an Aussie executive officer having a combined US-AUS crew. Makes sense it does for the first subs.

70% of Australians support nuclear submarines under AUKUS​

Country's public increasingly views Russia and China as threats in new poll

Australia's plan to acquire nuclear submarines under the AUKUS trilateral security partnership enjoys support from 70% of the country's public, a poll shows, as a growing number of people view Russia and China as threats. The results of an annual survey by the Lowy Institute, a Sydney-based think tank, come after Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. unveiled AUKUS.

This contrasts sharply with the general antinuclear sentiment in Australia. A full 63% of respondents in the poll opposed Australia acquiring nuclear weapons. Lowy asked respondents to rank a list of potential threats to Australia's vital interests over the next decade. "Russia's foreign policy" was picked as a critical threat -- the most serious kind -- by 68% in the latest poll, which follows Russia's invasion of Ukraine. China's foreign policy was seen as a critical threat by 65%. This edged a military clash between the U.S. and China over Taiwan, which came in at 64% of respondents. Climate change was regarded as a critical threat by 62%.

asia.nikkei.com

70% of Australians support nuclear submarines under AUKUS

Country's public increasingly views Russia and China as threats in new poll
asia.nikkei.com asia.nikkei.com
Click to expand...
This morning China has been hollering "containment" by the US while at the same time promising further pressure against Tiawan embracing its "reunification of the motherland" even more so. Ah yes, words of "motherland" echoed by both China and Russia while flexing their muscles. A sense of going back in time to stricter Communism under a phony cloak of democracy.

MSN

www.msn.com





Not only is this a strengthening of sophisticated subs but also the pursuit of increased shipbuilding that means more jobs. Electric Boat of Conn is making a huge jump with this deal.


www.stripes.com

'Once in generation expansion': Can Electric Boat expand to build subs for an international goal?

www.stripes.com www.stripes.com

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, a leading AUKUS supporter whose district, like Reed’s, includes an EB shipyard, pushed back with a letter co-signed by eight bipartisan colleagues on the Seapower subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. They argued that a transfer is needed not only to contain China but as a means of forcing an expansion of U.S. shipbuilding capacity.

“These realities should not be viewed as a reason not to pursue US build submarine options in AUKUS but rather as a unique opportunity to leverage the support and resources possible under AUKUS to grow our industrial base to support both US and Australian submarine construction, recognizing that the full fruition of AUKUS over many decades will result in Australia’s ability to domestically produce nuclear-powered submarines,” Courtney and the others wrote..



A senior manager on EB’s Columbia program called those submarines more technologically complex than NASA’s space shuttle. At about $9.15 billion a piece, they cost more than five times as much.

The Columbia is designed as a submerged missile platform. It is 560 feet long, displaces nearly 21,000 tons and launches Trident II missiles from 16 launch tubes. Because of its mobility and ability to conceal itself in the ocean depths, it is considered the most survivable leg of the nation’s nuclear triad of land, air and sea-based missiles.
 
ouch said:
This morning China has been hollering "containment" by the US while at the same time promising further pressure against Tiawan embracing its "reunification of the motherland" even more so. Ah yes, words of "motherland" echoed by both China and Russia while flexing their muscles. A sense of going back in time to stricter Communism under a phony cloak of democracy.

Click to expand...

Xi Jinping is dense upstairs as is well known. Unlike the flashy Putin Xi Jinping is a laborious plodder. Xi has a one track mind.

Xi relies on Mao's doctrines that are sorely out of date and cuckoo to begin with. Xi ignoring the continuing economic decline is for instance a formula for disaster. GDP under Xi has gone from 10% growth to 3% which in China is a recession. As Nomura noted in 2018 Xi's GDP was headed for zero and it's going to blow right through zero into minus territory -- by the end of next year, likely, but sooner rather than later. Xi has always been a leader of the anti Deng Xiao Peng party faction that remains dedicated to Mao who purged Deng more than once before Mao died in 1976.

The One China, Two Systems comes from Mao as his own deceptive brainchild. It was ignored until 1992 when CCP and the Brits were negotiating the return of Beijing sovereignty over Hong Kong. CCP promised One Country Two Systems for Hong Kong and on the side included this fraudulent scheme for Taiwan too and by agreement with the ruling KMT. The CCP ruthless assassination of democracy in Hong Kong however put the Two Systems fraud out of business completely on Taiwan where KMT found themselves put out of business too.

In the 2016 elections on Taiwan voters gave the national government over completely to the Democratic Progressive Party that has always rejected the One Country Two Systems garbage doled out by Beijing. Tsai Ing-wen became the second DPP president while DPP took complete control of the legislature for the first time. After a DPP landslide reelection in 2020 the legislature dissolved all claims to the mainland China. It said there is now one China, the PRC and One System, the CCP. Taiwan became Taiwan to include issuing a new passport that said TAIWAN in big letters.

Yet Xi still doesn't get it, ie, the numbnuts continues in his dense and dogmatic Maoist doctrine of One China, Two Systems. So in January NATO SecGen Jens Stoltenberg was in Tokyo and Seoul to talk turkey about restructuring the region's defenses against Beijing along the lines of a Pacific-East Asia version of NATO. And while this is what's in the works, the big question remains which is should the new defensive alliance that will further isolate Beijing in the region include Taiwan as a member. Because it is clear a strong deterrence against Beijing is necessary and needed. Indeed, the lesson of Ukraine and Russia is noted.
 
Ug make hammer said:
The costs to invade Australia were never worth it, for a country with no oil or rubber. Unlike the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) Australia was an independent country and would not readily exchange one foreign ruler for another.

Australian leaders never say so, but they must be worried about Indonesia. It's the fourth most populous country on Earth (five times the population of Australia). Needing 5% GDP growth and with huge poverty problems, Indonesia can't afford a world class military ... but if China starts donating or selling below cost, Indonesia could be a serious threat.

Australia doesn't just need submarines, OTH radar, missiles and all the good stuff. It needs to be a good customer to the US, to remind the US that Australia has contributed to every war where the Americans asked. Former Prime Minister John Howard called this "paying the premiums" on Australia's defense "insurance."

Frankly Australia shouldn't be buying arms from ANYONE but the US. Because of where it is, the only modern military power that Australia can turn to is the US. If Japan would get off the bench, they'd be a valuable ally too.
Click to expand...

Why should Australia only buy US equipment?
Europe makes excellent equipment and we are more willing to give operational sovereignty.
The UK makes some of the best military stuff in the world so why shouldn't Australia buy it?
Australia has more historical ties with the UK than the US so that makes sense as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom