Search this Topic:
Jun 12 14 1:42 PM
Jul 10 14 4:47 PM
Jul 10 14 7:08 PM
Jul 10 14 10:56 PM
Jul 11 14 4:01 AM
NewGolconda wrote:Are you sure you are not describing the first fifty years of RAN history with complete dependence on RN materiel? Which of course came with a healthy dose of we know what you want better than you know yourselves?
You don't think Japan is going to get much out of an order for 6-12 large capable subs? How about a successful program being the leading wave of a whole generation of submarine exports? How about a strengthened multi lateral security arrangement that goes beyond the US and helps address an increasingly more bellicose China? How about a long term relationship with a major synergistic trade partner?
In addition to submarine and security issues, the recent visit by the Japanese PM and a trade delegation also inked a free trade deal, visits to major iron ore mines, discussion of large LNG plants etc etc.
Australia needs balance to China, not just in terms of defence and security, but also trade and industry. A outsider might not realise just how much influence China carrier during the recent mineral boom, and its aftermath. A one sided dependent economic relationship with China is not in the national interest. Strong balanced economic and political relationships with Japan, China, South Korea as well as smaller regional nations and nations outside the region is. The recent initiatives of the Abbott government to strengthen the relationship with Japan are eminently sensible.
Jul 11 14 6:25 AM
Jul 16 14 9:01 AM
skipper101 wrote: Violent competition for resources is in the DNA of all life on this planet, and I don't think that 70 years of niceness and holding hands and United Earth Everything is really enough to overcome the most basic fundamental aspects of our nature.
Jul 16 14 1:04 PM
skipper101 wrote:As for the economic rational for being nice to everyone as opposed to not being so nice, how often in the history of the world as economic prudence been a deciding factor in international relations. Was it cheaper to go to war with Iraq than just buy oil from them, was it cheaper for Argentina to trade with the UK instead of invading the Falklands, would it not have been cheaper to let Hitler have his little prat empire.
Jul 16 14 3:24 PM
Jul 30 14 6:49 PM
Australia's $60 billion submarine dilemmaClaire Corbett August, 2014If Australians felt blindsided in April when the federal government announced its purchase of an additional 58 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets for $12 billion, they’ll want to sit down with a strong cup of tea to contemplate the cost of our future submarine fleet. The new vessels will need to enter service by the early-to-mid 2030s in order to replace the ageing Collins Class submarines. It will be one of the biggest and most expensive infrastructure projects in Australian history, as ambitious as the Snowy Mountain Hydro-electric Scheme or the National Broadband Network.To discuss the project, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) hosted a conference, The Submarine Choice, over two days in April. It was “the most knowledgeable gathering ever held in Australia to do with submarines”, said ASPI’s executive director, Peter Jennings, and there was not an empty seat to be found in the Federation Ballroom of the Canberra Hyatt.The defence minister, David Johnston, opened the conference and stated clearly the difficulty Australia faces in considering its future submarine options. What we want, the minister admitted, is a conventional submarine (one powered by diesel-electric motors), with the power, speed and range of a nuclear submarine. Such a boat doesn’t exist. Nor, as the then chief of navy, Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, pointed out in his speech, has Australia even begun to acquire the infrastructure or invest in the training needed to support nuclear-powered submarines...............the media has breathlessly suggested the possibility of off-the-shelf purchase of Japanese submarines. The Australian submariner community is highly sceptical, as Japanese subs do not meet Australia’s unique requirements, and their much-touted air-independent propulsion is actually Swedish technology that would have to be bought directly from Sweden. The supposedly silent propulsion system, according to these submariners, also includes a modified French engine that is already out of date.(...END EXCERPT)Read the whole thing in The Monthly (magazine) site via the following Tiny URL: the original link is over 200 characters long - http://tinyurl.com/mmauozc
Jul 31 14 12:28 AM
Sep 4 14 6:17 PM
Sep 4 14 10:29 PM
Sep 4 14 11:52 PM
Sep 5 14 1:26 AM
Sep 5 14 1:40 AM
Sep 5 14 3:34 AM
Sep 5 14 3:39 AM
Sep 5 14 10:33 AM
skipper101 wrote:How much more would it cost to build Soryu in Australia if it is anywhere close to twice the price then its not worth it.
Sep 5 14 11:07 AM
sam mk2 wrote:The Japanese only keep their subs for 20 years. The first of the Soryus will be leaving service before the Collins class starts to be withdrawn. More likely Australia will be looking at the son of Soryu.
They are also only designed for a 20 year service life.
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.