RAN's Collins class replacement

[Monash]

Dutton is busy trying to undermine a war crimes investigation. He is happy to be out of the spotlight right now.

If that claim is true he's going to have to be extremely careful. Doing so would mean right dancing into the middle of a political and legal minefield. Too many people are involved. Too many lawyers, investigators and witnesses are involved and too much evidence has been collected and digitized.

Disrupting the commissions work, or at least 'influencing it's final report? IMO very risky for both him and the government. At best perhaps he could hope to have some influence over the wording of the final report and its recommendations. Regardless that report is apparently going to drop a grenade in the governments lap. Restructure special forces (including shifting out those under a cloud, at least those who haven't already pulled the pin or asked for transfers) yes, that he can and will be doing.

All we can do is hope there's no major requirement for their services (other than domestic CT taskings etc) for a decade or so while they are re-built from the ground up.

[Monash]

They let you send troops to Singapore to stop the Japanese.....

Too soon?

Aussies are arguably the best combat troops of WWII. The Anzac's were key in North Africa and Churchill knew it. When Japan finally convinced him to let's the Anzac troops leave North Africa Tobruck the Japanese never win another ground offensive against western troops.

Z further to my previous post about Britain's 'reluctance' to defend Australia and the approaches to it during WW11. Here's a countervailing article arguing that in fact there was in fact no such 'betrayal' and highlighting some of the steps the British were prepared to take to bolster our defense's if the strategic situation had meant an invasion was likely and history had panned out a little differently..

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/201...reat-betrayal/

[Bigfella]

If that claim is true he's going to have to be extremely careful. Doing so would mean right dancing into the middle of a political and legal minefield. Too many people are involved. Too many lawyers, investigators and witnesses are involved and too much evidence has been collected and digitized.

Disrupting the commissions work, or at least 'influencing it's final report? IMO very risky for both him and the government. At best perhaps he could hope to have some influence over the wording of the final report and its recommendations. Regardless that report is apparently going to drop a grenade in the governments lap. Restructure special forces (including shifting out those under a cloud, at least those who haven't already pulled the pin or asked for transfers) yes, that he can and will be doing.

All we can do is hope there's no major requirement for their services (other than domestic CT taskings etc) for a decade or so while they are re-built from the ground up.

A few months back he was having a go at one of the key authors of the report, now he is undermining the senior military people who pursued the issue. He is undoing thr reforms put in place as a result of the report. Expect more along these lines. I'm not convinced he really sees anything wrong with what is alleged to have happened - 'soldiers will be soldiers'. If he gets his way it will be slaps on the wrist at worst.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/p...23-p58u7v.html

[zraver]

Z further to my previous post about Britain's 'reluctance' to defend Australia and the approaches to it during WW11. Here's a countervailing article arguing that in fact there was in fact no such 'betrayal' and highlighting some of the steps the British were prepared to take to bolster our defense's if the strategic situation had meant an invasion was likely and history had panned out a little differently..

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/201...reat-betrayal/

I'm not invested in the did or didn't. I do know the Anzac division sent to Singapore was destroyed and that once the ones in North Africa arrived in the Pacific the Japanese advance was always to the rear. Even if they had gone to Burma I think it can be argued that they would have walked to Australia from Burma building rafts when they they came to the wet stuff and there is jack all the IJA could have done to stop them. I wasn't kidding that it can argued that Australia had the best soldiers. The kill ratios for Australian infantry against the Japanese from 1942 onward is obscene. The Japanese felt they could out bleed the allies, but they couldn't make the Australians bleed hardly at all. Over the course of the PNG campaign allied troops inflicted losses exceeding 11:1. Japan was 10x the size of Australia so as long as we kept the Aussies supplied Japan would have run out of army before running out of Australians. In North Africa the Germans and Italians had the same problem. In WWI the Germans had the same problem. The only people to really shove up against a pissed off Australian infantryman and not get shoved back were the Turks at Gallipoli. Just an FYI, Australian war dead (killed in action) for all of the Pacific War are around 6300 with under 16,000 dead from all causes, under 19000 for all theaters not including POW deaths. 730,000 Aussies served in the war, some of the dead are naval or pilots so over all loses for the Australian Army were less than 2.6%. The US lost 3.3% of our military and we were not fighting for as long. The other nations suffered higher.

[Officer of Engineers]

A few months back he was having a go at one of the key authors of the report, now he is undermining the senior military people who pursued the issue. He is undoing thr reforms put in place as a result of the report. Expect more along these lines. I'm not convinced he really sees anything wrong with what is alleged to have happened - 'soldiers will be soldiers'. If he gets his way it will be slaps on the wrist at worst.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/p...23-p58u7v.html

What I'm reading sounds like a complete repeat of the Canadian Airborne Regiment fiasco. And Pete, I have news for you. Any talk of reform is nothing more than a smoke screen to please the public. All this means is that there are new/different rules for the rule breakers to circumvent. There was nothing wrong with the rules. They caught these fucks, didn't they?

You have to get rid of the people who are not doing their jobs and that means the leaders. 2 Sqn's Command should been relieved. Australian SAS's DCO should have assumed command after the 3rd AAR.

I do not agree with Disbanding 2 Sqn. That's a coward's act. All you doing is pushing those responsible back to their parent battalions. Relieving them of their duties at the very least restrict their harm to paper pushing.

[Double Edge]

I see you're doing your usual fine job of not actually reading what people post. Keep up the good work!

I thought you were you referring to this post

And that is what i tagged AR on

So what have i not read

What? Impossible! Andrew Bolt plainly said that French didn't deliver the missiles that Argentina ordered!

Why would Bolt who says not to trust the French support them in the Falklands. That's my point.

It makes me wonder what i was told back in the 80s about that affair. What the extent of the French assistance to Argentina was.

This is going off memories of what Brits told me over thirty years ago. I didn't question it then or look into it much.

[Double Edge]

Fuck me sideways! someone is using Andrew Bolt in a factual discussion. I assume this is some sort of attempt at satire.

Second video of his I've posted in this thread. The one with the rear admiral. Where were the howls of protests then, EH ?!?

Bolt is a Murdoch lifer and Trump fanboi who wouldn't know a reliable fact if it tore his head off & crapped down his neck.

It's called matching the media to the national govt of the day.

I would not use Sky to understand what goes in your state because your state is run by the opposition.

You vote in Labor to Canberra next year i will have to let him go.

Until such time If he or any of the Sky anchors says anything relevant to this thread i will continue to post their videos.

I like his commentary. Asks important questions and tries to answer them.

[Double Edge]

DE, I'd bet Albanese is just throwing some meat to the green vote preference. Its his election to loose. I don't see him starting another acquisition process. If the LNP is serious, and I expect they are they'll advance some options the public hasn't fully grasped yet prior to election. I don't think they'll kick the can down the road . Regardless of the decision to acquire, there's going to be significant issues that will no doubt dominate some news to come. It's politically advantageous for them to get the flywheel going for although the public may not care about defence that much, there's nothing like the perception of extended government incompetence to sway elections- and this is a project that offers just that.

That all being said the spotlight has been on Morrison, Biden & the French. It hasn't been on Dutton or Payne, where they've been or the postings of the RAN capital assets this last week. Lends me to believe the government is very serious.

I'll tell you another reason why I think Labor won't scuttle AUKUS.

The French were preferred over the German & Japanese bid because the French offered what they could not. Nuclear Propulsion.

The funny bit is the Americans were ok with the combat system you wanted for that sub which means they would also be ok should you have gone with a French nuclear sub later.

But the French still lost. Why ? because the Americans offered something the French could not.

In the Aussie context, A security guarantee.

Why is that necessary when you already have a treaty with the US ?

Because if anyone in Australia has doubts about whether the US would stand with Australia if the balloon goes up you say AUKUS is a reaffirmation of the treaty

Bolt saying go with US/UK for trust is a lesser reason.

I don't think the timeline favours a local build. I think that will come to pass soon enough. They'll have to do a swapsies with other projects.

This brings up the next question.

If Collins is supposed to be getting too old past 2025 and those nuclear subs aren't coming online before 2035 if not later then what do you use in the mean time ?

[Double Edge]

1, France may be pissed off but that is not the same as Europe. I am sure the Poles, Germans, Italians, Baltics, Low Country nations couldn't give 2 shits whether France got a submarine deal done with Australia. This is a bilateral between US & FR...and as been said, both have moved on as there is so much more common ground to cover.

Things are not going to settle between France & Australia until both conclude their polls next year. Both are going to get into crazy mode soon.

Whatever either says as the polls approach isn't reliable.

Macron is going to run against the US (Like Chirac & Schroder did over Iraq, Sorry US. Too tempting).

Macron need's every trick in the book to beat anti-incumbency against Le Pen.

Morrison can't even get through to Macron and given how cavalier Sky commentary is over this i doubt we will be seeing any repair efforts coming from the Aussie side.

The rest of the EU is going to bandwagon with France because that's the only assertive power left there.

Germans, Italians are soft on China.

EU recently released its Indo-Pacific policy and this development sidelines it.

So what next. China is watching for daylight between partners and will exploit it.

I've not checked French commentary yet, all this hoo haa is Macon throwing a fit because he's out the political capital and the polls are next year.

The French if i know them are too damn proud to let this get them down

2. Does Mister Green realize we were prepared to lose the Fulda Gap? Cause we were.

What do you mean ?

A plan B or a feint ie. tricking the Soviets into thinking Fulda was important

Where is the plan B in the Taiwan context ? I hear Taiwanese commentators saying they are alone. A interview with a Taiwanese colonel i've been meaning to post for weeks but not had time. Interestingly, despite the rhetoric he does not believe China will invade.

I'll post Dr. Green's article on island chains as Fulda when its up on CSIS.

[Chunder]

Dutton is busy trying to undermine a war crimes investigation. He is happy to be out of the spotlight right now.

Sorry, relatively unfamiliar - I regard Payne as competent though. I meant to say that both had visited India, Indonesia & South Korea ahead of Aukus announcement and QUAD meeting, at the same time as significant RAN assets sit in Cam Ranh Bay.

My takeaway being that regardless of what motives Dutton may have to be out of the spotlight, that in light of covid restrictions, to have those two ministerial positions head over meant the diplomacy had already started with all except Thailand & Malaysia. Phillipine foreign minister came out in support of it as has the Sings

All I can get is statements from Malaysia, China & Indonesia, the latter which I think is probably more diplomatic speak.

My point being that it appears the government is serious. I'll happily defer to telling the French where to go however :) seems like they've made more noise than the other three combined. Hell China seems to have a copy paste approach to these things and probably has already long since moved on.

[Double Edge]

As for the topic, given the state of Chinese ASW, the Australians could use guppies and they still will sink any Chinese task force stupid enough to sail south.

Chinese have played around with Indonesians at Natuna. Aussies are next. A matter of time.

I personally do not think SSNs are a good buy for smaller powers like Australia and Canada. It's a long term cost that goes beyond the life of the subs. Decomissioning these beasts are going to cost as much as a refit

What else should Australia get ?

Canada btw has shown no interest to be part of this deal.

I don't care what the Aussies get because the IN can't cover the choke points around Indonesia. We have some dark spots there. That is for Australia to do.

We're already stretched as it is.

We plan to be at 200 ships within a decade. If we're lucky. Where are we at today. I hear numbers ranging from 130 on up to 170.

Indian admirals don't fret about PLAN or interoperability with NATO. They fret over the sheer expanse IN has to cover. They want more budget.

Same applies to Australia. How big is the Australian navy ? One Aussie commentator referred to it as 'boutique' sized.

What I said a few lines up and other things i've told you about the IN some months back comes from that discussion.

[Officer of Engineers]

Chinese have played around with Indonesians at Natuna. Aussies are next. A matter of time.

Who cares? Without neutralizing Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan (and they haven't even begun), the Chinese are restricted to big words, small action in outside waters.

What else should Australia get ?

What else is there? AIP.

Canada btw has shown no interest to be part of this deal.

The Army and the Air Force ain't going to allow the Navy to tie up $2bil a year out of a $12bil annual budget for decomissioning.

I don't care what the Aussies get because the IN can't cover the choke points around Indonesia. We have some dark spots there. That is for Australia to do.

We're already stretched as it is.

We plan to be at 200 ships within a decade. If we're lucky. Where are we at today. I hear numbers ranging from 130 on up to 170.

Indian admirals don't fret about PLAN or interoperability with NATO. They fret over the sheer expanse IN has to cover. They want more budget.

Same applies to Australia. How big is the Australian navy ? One Aussie commentator referred to it as 'boutique' sized.

What I said a few lines up and other things i've told you about the IN some months back comes from that discussion.

Nobody is asking India to and nobody is expecting India to. As I stated, India is not going to sink the Iranian Navy when the Americans are too busy with the Chinese. But the RN and the RAN might.

[zraver]

If Collins is supposed to be getting too old past 2025 and those nuclear subs aren't coming online before 2035 if not later then what do you use in the mean time ?

Buy a couple new astutes or some surplus-ish 688 flight III's from the UK or US to hold the line while the infrastructure for building nuclear boats is built up.

[Albany Rifles]

I thought you were you referring to this post

And that is what i tagged AR on

So what have i not read



Why would Bolt who says not to trust the French support them in the Falklands. That's my point.

It makes me wonder what i was told back in the 80s about that affair. What the extent of the French assistance to Argentina was.

This is going off memories of what Brits told me over thirty years ago. I didn't question it then or look into it much.

I never said that France delivered Exocets to Argentina during the Falklands. I said that French technicians worked with the Argies to get the Exocets they already had would work.

The did work and they did hit several RN/RFA vessels.

That is what he was referring to.

Here is one source but it was widely known in the mid-1980s, especially among us NATO types.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17256975

[Albany Rifles]

What do you mean ?

A plan B or a feint ie. tricking the Soviets into thinking Fulda was important

Where is the plan B in the Taiwan context ? I hear Taiwanese commentators saying they are alone. A interview with a Taiwanese colonel i've been meaning to post for weeks but not had time. Interestingly, despite the rhetoric he does not believe China will invade.

I'll post Dr. Green's article on island chains as Fulda when its up on CSIS.

Simple...we didn't have the combat power to hold the Fulda Gap against the bulk of GSFG/ The plan was to make a hard fighting withdrawal to a point where the REFORGER units deployed and got their gear and could counterattack toward to north and to/through Meinengen Gap in the south.

The terrain lends itself to a defense in depth but no as a way to stop the GSFG.