Jump to content

AUKUS...


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

 

H.MS. Conquerer flies the Jolly Roger;

IMG_1648.JPG.e66cb746a2deae96b2ea2f89a53d8614.JPG

Cheers.

 

First and only time a nuclear powered boat has engaged and killed an enemy warship in combat. And they did it with WWII era unguided torpedoes in favour of guided ones.

The Royal Navy has quite an edge when it comes to real deal combat experience, in an age where very little happens.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The french made the first 8 geared tank …. Only problem was seven of the gears were reverse …….

Nobody involved with anything military ever thought to themselves “I know, better call France !”     

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Nicepix said:

You started out saying that Australia could have serviced the American and British subs if they had continued with the French deal. But without AUKUS the Aussies wouldn't have the technology, knowledge or facilities to service nuclear subs. Then you said that AUKUS would exclude New Zealand from the protection yet it is New Zealand themselves that chose not to allow nuclear powered vessles in their waters. Now you claim that AUKUS is dead.

What planet are you on?

No I wrote France have less chances to service their subs in the pacific with out the Aussie deal. As I understand Australia are not going to service the nuclear reactors as Australia have taken a decission to not have any nuclear power on their continent (water are exluded) the new reactors for submarines are not going to be refueled for 25y and it may be done in US. Jasinda Ardern not I said nuclear submarines even run by their closest ally are not allowed in NZ  waters. AUKUS are still a new living pact, but cancelling a contract will make the time for Australia to get new submarines longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, KimE said:

No I wrote France have less chances to service their subs in the pacific with out the Aussie deal. As I understand Australia are not going to service the nuclear reactors as Australia have taken a decission to not have any nuclear power on their continent (water are exluded) the new reactors for submarines are not going to be refueled for 25y and it may be done in US. Jasinda Ardern not I said nuclear submarines even run by their closest ally are not allowed in NZ  waters. AUKUS are still a new living pact, but cancelling a contract will make the time for Australia to get new submarines longer.

Without AUKUS Australia could not act as a base for British ans American submarines. Now they will have an operational base in the southern hemisphere. That is a massive statement to China and Russia. And New Zealand made their own  decision, nothing to do with Australia. I'm not so sure that China would honour that exclusion any way. 

Servicing nuclear subs isn't all about the fuel cell. The whole boat is diffferent so, as I said earlier, without AUKUS the US and British boats could not be serviced in Australia. That will increase patrol times in the southern hemisphere without an increase in the fleet numbers. Once the base is complete and staffed Australia will benefit from an increased presence of friendly vessels while awaiting their own subs. Again, an increased deterrent.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

News this morning that Biden has offered Johnson an opportunity to join NAFTA, before a bilateral trade deal is agreed.

The Mail is deriding it as putting us on the same level as Mexico. What's wrong with that ?

NAFTA is a free trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada.

I see it as a way of getting a trade deal with America without waiting for the US-EU deal, which could take years.

"Real Politik" at work !

Cheers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Borr said:

Speaking at the 75th United Nations General Assembly, the Peronist leader also claimed Britain had an “excessive and unjustified military presence on the islands”.

 

Unjustified, haha ey right...

Tbf he’s right… the Argentine military of today couldn’t invade a football pitch never mind the falklands! :whistling:

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...