AUKUS...

[Nicepix 5,650]

4 hours ago, jukel123 said:

I have no opinion on this because i don't know anything about it.

I was a alarmed though when some commentators reckoned conflict with China would be more likely as a result of the arrangement. Given Australia and America are not exactly bosom buddies, this does seem a legitimate concern. Although I guess it's our fate to follow the states into any conflict no matter what.

How does Aukus affect our membership of NATO?

In WW2 England acted as an aircraft carrier for the Yanks. They could not have contributed to the European campaign anywhere near as much without UK airbases and army bases. Australia under the new pact could be the US & UK's naval base in the southern hemisphere. Nuclear subs need to restock with food, change crew and be serviced and if they had to return to the UK for this it would impact on their operational time in the southern waters. This deal is more than selling hardware.

[Born Hunter 17,623]

22 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

In WW2 England acted as an aircraft carrier for the Yanks. They could not have contributed to the European campaign anywhere near as much without UK airbases and army bases. Australia under the new pact could be the US & UK's naval base in the southern hemisphere. Nuclear subs need to restock with food, change crew and be serviced and if they had to return to the UK for this it would impact on their operational time in the southern waters. This deal is more than selling hardware.

I think AUS would’ve been up for that anyway but for sure this strengthens that and fits right in with uk strategy of forward deployment.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is the kiwis stance on all of this. They have a less than minimum military force, are heavily dependent on trade with China and they’ve reminded the Aussies and the world that they’ve banned nuclear anything, in this case nuclear propulsion, in their territories.

Now I love NZ but they’re clearly taking a policy of appeasement…

[WILF 44,259]

2 hours ago, THE STIFFMEISTER said:

I know , I’ve put a tender in

Glue cardboard wings to the truck they made you jump out of at Brize ! Lol  

[KimE 487]

39 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

In WW2 England acted as an aircraft carrier for the Yanks. They could not have contributed to the European campaign anywhere near as much without UK airbases and army bases. Australia under the new pact could be the US & UK's naval base in the southern hemisphere. Nuclear subs need to restock with food, change crew and be serviced and if they had to return to the UK for this it would impact on their operational time in the southern waters. This deal is more than selling hardware.

Yes its why it was very important to France to have Australia as an allied in the pacific. France have territory close to Australia.

 

This Aukus pact also leaves the two commonwealth "five star" members Canada and New Zealand out in the cold.

[Born Hunter 17,623]

2 minutes ago, KimE said:

This Aukus pact also leaves the two commonwealth "five star" members Canada and New Zealand out in the cold.

Five eyes?

The RCN only run SSKs and the kiwis outright ban nuclear propulsion and weapons. They’re left out because they don’t want part of it. I’ll guarantee all involved would love to have Canada and NZ want in at some level. Canada especially. 

[KimE 487]

15 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

I think AUS would’ve been up for that anyway but for sure this strengthens that and fits right in with uk strategy of forward deployment.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is the kiwis stance on all of this. They have a less than minimum military force, are heavily dependent on trade with China and they’ve reminded the Aussies and the world that they’ve banned nuclear anything, in this case nuclear propulsion, in their territories.

Now I love NZ but they’re clearly taking a policy of appeasement…

Nuclear or neuclear this also makes Australian submarines possible nuclear missile launchers as both british or US options can launch neuclear weapons.

[Born Hunter 17,623]

Just now, KimE said:

Nuclear or neuclear this also makes Australian submarines possible nuclear missile launchers as both british or US options can launch neuclear weapons.

 

Astutes kinetic weapons are the TLAM cruise missile and the spearfish torpedo. Neither are nuclear and if you then say well they could fit nuclear warheads to them then I’d say well they could fit nuclear warheads to anything really. Only our vanguard boats carry nuclear weapons.

We’re talking purely nuclear propulsion here. This is strategically important because SSNs have the advantage in blue water compared to SSKs which specialise in the littorals really.

The Aussies aren’t buying ballistic missile boats. They want hunter killers.

[Nicepix 5,650]

10 hours ago, KimE said:

Yes its why it was very important to France to have Australia as an allied in the pacific. France have territory close to Australia.

 

This Aukus pact also leaves the two commonwealth "five star" members Canada and New Zealand out in the cold.

The whole point can be summed in one word: Deterrent.

China .v. Australia and France with some diesel subs and a couple of French boats or China .v. AUKUS with 3 x nuclear subs.  Which is likley to deter China the most?  

Edited September 21, 2021 by Nicepix

[Jonjon79 13,340]

18 hours ago, chartpolski said:

I've thought for years that we should have given more weight to relations with the Anglophone world, and the Commonwealth, than to the EU.

It looks like it is now happening.

Cheers.

My thoughts exactly

 

f**k the French and the whole EU - we've got better friends in the world.

[KimE 487]

6 hours ago, Nicepix said:

The whole point can be summed in one word: Deterrent.

China .v. Australia and France with some diesel subs and a couple of French boats or China .v. AUKUS with 3 x nuclear subs.  Which is likley to deter China the most?  

None of them as Australia now are going to continue using their six Swedish/Australian Collins class subs by a service life extention.

[Born Hunter 17,623]

27 minutes ago, KimE said:

None of them as Australia now are going to continue using their six Swedish/Australian Collins class subs by a service life extention.

Until they take delivery of their SSNs…. 

[Born Hunter 17,623]

[WILF 44,259]

33 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Clever b*****ds have put the fin underneath for more stability !……sneaky ! 

[chartpolski 20,388]

 

H.MS. Conquerer flies the Jolly Roger;

Cheers.

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by chartpolski

[Nicepix 5,650]

3 hours ago, KimE said:

None of them as Australia now are going to continue using their six Swedish/Australian Collins class subs by a service life extention.

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?