AUKUS

Remove this Banner Ad

Kwality said:
Invading army, why would China want to control Australian cities like Melbourne, Sydney etc ?
Click to expand...
I don't think they would. But we still need to be able to stand on our own two feet, instead of being beholden to America for protection.
 
#23 Hill said:
Missiles would be better. If an invading army was en route to Australia, we could bomb the sh!t out of them as soon as they entered our territorial waters. A small supply of nukes would be good too. Just as a deterrent to other nuclear powers. Sure the likes of China & others could nuke us into oblivion, but if the price they had to pay to do that was to get hit 10 nukes from us, would they be prepared to pay it? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

220 Tomahawks on their way;

Australia is a step closer to purchasing up to 220 missiles from the United States, in a deal that could be worth about $1.3b.

The United States’ State Department has approved the potential sale of Tomahawk cruise missiles in what it says is “vital” to help Australia maintain a “strong and ready self-defence capability”.

Of course with 34,000kms of coastline to defend thats 1 missile every 155kms or so.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Syd said:
220 Tomahawks on their way;

Australia is a step closer to purchasing up to 220 missiles from the United States, in a deal that could be worth about $1.3b.

The United States’ State Department has approved the potential sale of Tomahawk cruise missiles in what it says is “vital” to help Australia maintain a “strong and ready self-defence capability”.

Of course with 34,000kms of coastline to defend thats 1 missile every 155kms or so.
Click to expand...
They should've spent a few more billion on missiles and not bothered with the subs.
 
Syd said:
220 Tomahawks on their way;

Australia is a step closer to purchasing up to 220 missiles from the United States, in a deal that could be worth about $1.3b.

The United States’ State Department has approved the potential sale of Tomahawk cruise missiles in what it says is “vital” to help Australia maintain a “strong and ready self-defence capability”.

Of course with 34,000kms of coastline to defend thats 1 missile every 155kms or so.
Click to expand...
The idea of tomahawks is the same logic we bought f111’s for.

War is always an abstract concept when you arent in a shell scrape - you order 10000 men youve never seen off to their deaths and go eat your wheaties- long range weaponry makes it a bit more real - now its you and your family in the crosshairs…. You decide to invade country xyz… well country xyz has the capacity to target you personally.


<<<<

“ Former Indonesian defense minister Benny Murdani told his counterpart Kim Beazley that when others became upset with Australia during cabinet meetings, Murdani told them “Do you realize the Australians have a bomber that can put a bomb through that window on to the table here in front of us?>>>​

 
#23 Hill said:
They should've spent a few more billion on missiles and not bothered with the subs.
Click to expand...

Being an Island heavily dependant on having shipping lanes kept open, submarines will always be an essential part of the military defence mix.
Not sure they needed the option taken as opposed to another design (cheaper sub), but then again Albo & Co didn't ask me for my input, just my future tax $
 
Kwality said:
We've got the food & resources that China would want, but a land war (Ukraine) ..... nope.
Click to expand...
How else would they take the resources without taking the land? That said, I don't think China is a huge threat. But I still think we need to have the capacity to defend our country if have to.
 
Syd said:
Being an Island heavily dependant on having shipping lanes kept open, submarines will always be an essential part of the military defence mix.
Not sure they needed the option taken as opposed to another design (cheaper sub), but then again Albo & Co didn't ask me for my input, just my future tax $
Click to expand...
Well if you're paying for it.....
 
Syd said:
Being an Island heavily dependant on having shipping lanes kept open, submarines will always be an essential part of the military defence mix.
Not sure they needed the option taken as opposed to another design (cheaper sub), but then again Albo & Co didn't ask me for my input, just my future tax $
Click to expand...
Also if theres ever an invasion fleet a subs job is to sink the carriers / troopships.

Do that and the invasion is finished before it even starts.

Our diesel electric boats are good but range limited and eventually have to surface to snorkel where they are noisy and easy to find and destroy.

Nucs can disappear off the face of the earth and reappear a few days later 1000’s of km away. They can threaten from any point of the compass where a diesel electric can only threaten from the front or sides and once a fleet has gone past them, they cant catch up.

A nuc boat can wait, follow a convoy and wait for the perfect moment.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Syd said:
But the current Collins class is not configured to use Tomahawk missiles at present.
I believe Harpoons are the missile used at this time.
Click to expand...

Harpoons are a ship-ship missile and can't be used against land targets

Tomahawks are a ship-land missile and can't be used against ship targets.
 
Syd said:
But the current Collins class is not configured to use Tomahawk missiles at present.
I believe Harpoons are the missile used at this time.
Click to expand...

Harpoons are anti-ship missiles - they are used to attack an invading fleet and protect the country.

Tomahawks however can attack land based targets, so we can now join the Americans in launching cruise missiles against the Chinese mainland, which will now make us open to retaliation against targets in Australia.
 
Schneebly11 said:
Harpoons are anti-ship missiles - they are used to attack an invading fleet and protect the country.

Tomahawks however can attack land based targets, so we can now join the Americans in launching cruise missiles against the Chinese mainland, which will now make us open to retaliation against targets in Australia.
Click to expand...

Correct

Harpoons are fired out of the torpedo tubes, and Tomahawks are launched vertically off the back of the submarine (from underwater).

We can also use them in the next Iraq/Afghanistan War
 
We've got heaps of Harpoons already FWIW, don't worry about us running out any time soon. Genuine concern about this.
 
Syd said:
Being an Island heavily dependant on having shipping lanes kept open, submarines will always be an essential part of the military defence mix.
Not sure they needed the option taken as opposed to another design (cheaper sub), but then again Albo & Co didn't ask me for my input, just my future tax $
Click to expand...

Being and island rich in natural resource our best defence would be self sufficiency … and sustainability.
No need for imports.
 
"Peter Garrett says nuclear submarine deal ‘most costly and risky’ action ever taken by an Australian government
Midnight Oil frontman and ex Labor minister says the deal ‘stinks’ and backing Coalition’s Aukus pact is departure from established ALP policy."

This madness from copycat Albanese could destroy the Labor party. Not one back bencher spoke out against it. What a shite political party.

www.theguardian.com

Peter Garrett says nuclear submarine deal ‘most costly and risky’ action ever taken by an Australian government

Midnight Oil frontman and ex Labor minister says the deal ‘stinks’ and backing Coalition’s Aukus pact is departure from established ALP policy
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
This madness from copycat Albanese could destroy the Labor party. Not one back bencher spoke out against it. What a shite political party.
Click to expand...

I would say a lot have concerns, but will only express them privately. The ALP have always been critiqued for being weak on defence and don’t want the LNP to use it as an attack line.

But the base Labor members will not be happy. I bet there’ll be some grass roots opposition, but it’ll probably go nowhere
 
Schneebly11 said:
I would say a lot have concerns, but will only express them privately. The ALP have always been critiqued for being weak on defence and don’t want the LNP to use it as an attack line.

But the base Labor members will not be happy. I bet there’ll be some grass roots opposition, but it’ll probably go nowhere
Click to expand...
It has been reported in the Guardian that several Labor branches are passing motions to oppose this deal.
There is not one Labor MP with the guts to oppose this historically disasterous deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top