Australia ready to muscle up?

QC

1 CDO
Verified SOF
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,784
Location
ADEGVSWGV
http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/defence-ready-to-muscle-up-20120706-21mdj.html

It takes the skills of a diplomat as well as those of a soldier to head the Australian Defence Force. So it was startling to hear unusually plain talk from the present chief, General David Hurley, at a low-key event at the Lowy Institute in Sydney one evening last month.
Touching on the delicate subject of growing Chinese-US rivalry in the region, Hurley revealed: ''When I am asked by my US counterpart what's my major concern about the relationship between Australia and the US, I say the relationship between your military and the Chinese.''

Quite a long article, one for the policy wonks.
 

pardus

Verified Military
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
9,976
Hurley needs to think a bit more before he speaks I'd say.
Australia needs the US as a defense partner or China will roll over Aussie interests in the region. Appeasement only puts off the inevitable.
A larger sub fleet would be a great idea.
 

QC

1 CDO
Verified SOF
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,784
Location
ADEGVSWGV
It's a bit of a juggling act, but yes, subs seem to be the wise investment.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
15,914
Location
Not Afghanistan
One would think that U-Boat campaigns against the UK in two world wars would be enough of a historical guide for the Australian gov't.
 

pardus

Verified Military
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
9,976
I have no idea what a diesel sub costs in comparison to a frigate, ut I always thought it would be something New Zealand should have looked at.
 

digrar

custom user title
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
2,326
Location
No longer in the desert, breaking rocks.
Don't buy from the Brits, even if they offer you a "good deal". ;)

That hurts, I think the fucking thing is still limping back at 2% power...

We're sold on subs, mad keen on them, its just getting the politicians to realise that us making 10 -20 subs every 20 years isn't really maintaining any sort of capability and that getting boat building noobs to bolt together an Ikea version of a boat and then Australianise it and then fit it for but not with, in the aims of making it 50 billion cheaper is only going to repeat what we already have with the Collins.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
15,914
Location
Not Afghanistan
That hurts, I think the fucking thing is still limping back at 2% power...

We're sold on subs, mad keen on them, its just getting the politicians to realise that us making 10 -20 subs every 20 years isn't really maintaining any sort of capability and that getting boat building noobs to bolt together an Ikea version of a boat and then Australianise it and then fit it for but not with, in the aims of making it 50 billion cheaper is only going to repeat what we already have with the Collins.

Would you be better off taking over our old 688/ LA class boats or is that cost prohibitive?

The other thing is that for better or worse, the US has a robust ship-building/ design capability. I'd think it would be in both country's interests to collaborate on designing and building a sub for RAN use, even if it was from the ground up. It keeps our engineers and yards busy and it is in our national interests to have a strong Australian navy, even if we had to underwrite some of the costs.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
15,914
Location
Not Afghanistan
LMAO!!!!

IIRC, 209's are shallow water diesel boats in service for a variety of navies for a few decades now, but I'd have to consult my master intel database, Wikipedia, for more info. :)
 

Mac_NZ

Stitch Bitch
Verified Military
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
1,597
Location
Christchurch
Would you be better off taking over our old 688/ LA class boats or is that cost prohibitive?

I'm betting if Australia buys subs they will be US built or refurbished with a few MPs in Oz demanding that some of the work is done in their area which will be sub par and overly costly.

Aussie from my point of view is a lot closer now to the US than the UK defence wise. That makes perfect sense and is something I think we should follow suit on as we can no longer rely on the UK to project force in our neck of the woods.

You guys could probably save a fortune arming the ANZACs to the teeth leaving us to cover this area and freeing up your own forces. You also wouldn't have to worry about the weapons being turned on you like everyone else you gave them to :p
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
15,914
Location
Not Afghanistan
You guys could probably save a fortune arming the ANZACs to the teeth leaving us to cover this area and freeing up your own forces. You also wouldn't have to worry about the weapons being turned on you like everyone else you gave them to :p

LOL, no kidding.

Given the UK's importance in the world, her defense industry is in a sad state IMO.
 

pardus

Verified Military
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
9,976
You guys could probably save a fortune arming the ANZACs to the teeth leaving us to cover this area and freeing up your own forces. You also wouldn't have to worry about the weapons being turned on you like everyone else you gave them to :p

Seriously a program of supplying gear or and Israel type deal, 'give the ANZACs money to buy US gear' would help everyone out.

LOL, no kidding.

Given the UK's importance in the world, her defense industry is in a sad state IMO.

With 80,000 men and 50 MBTs the UK's Army (cant quote other services off the top of my head) is in a sad state of affairs indeed.
 

digrar

custom user title
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
2,326
Location
No longer in the desert, breaking rocks.
Can pretty much guarantee it won't be a nuc and we'll be looking at something that will be state of the art and still good to go in 20 years, which a boat built in 1976 probably won't be.
From what I can gather shallow water is a big deal and we need something with that capability. We've also got a pretty big patch of water to cover, so range is important. I think the next generation boat will be looked at to be operated by as small a crew as possible, manning them has been a drama apparently.
Who knows what we'll end up with, the RAN will want one thing, Defence another, the guys that actually sail them something else and the Government will have another idea entirely.
 

SpitfireV

Strike first, strike hard, no mercy!
Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
5,105
Location
New Zealand
I have no idea what a diesel sub costs in comparison to a frigate, ut I always thought it would be something New Zealand should have looked at.

The Navy would probably have to have a better than 22% turnover of staff to be able to actually man them...

I have thoughts on this article but right now I'm fucking tired so the China/US/Australia debate will have to wait.
 
Top