Is that a top secret weapon of mass destruction?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Remember the novel/movie "On the Beach"? You won't get hit but the fallout and nuclear winter will do you in, albeit more slowly.
Haha. Must resist making crude remark..
That and Australia actually had procedures and staff experience in handling UK nuclear weapons. Monte Bello, Emu field and Maralinga back in the 60's when these letters were first being written. Theres not a lot of countries you can rock up to with nuclear weapons and say "have these" and not create a very bad situation. I wonder if the RAN was deliberately stated ahead of the US. Back in the 60's it wouldn't surprise me if there was a regrouping plan post attack.
Given that they are now carrying Trident D-5 which are actually leased from the US, I would imagine that even if they were handed over to Australia, if the US still existed it would want its missiles back. I wonder what the yanks thought about the instructions, and what they had in their subs.
I may have been a bit of a reference to The Outward Urge, by Wyndham (of day of the triffids fame). Where Australia and Brazil slog it out for solar system supremacy after the northern hemisphere nukes itself out of existence. It was published in 1959.
Joe Black
Active Member
Yet another appeal in The Strategist against a "Captain's pick" Option J:
SEA 1000: the wrong way to boost strategic ties with Tokyo
The Shortfin Barracuda is starting to grow on me. If we can sort out the IP issues and the yanks allow the AN/BYG-1 to be installed in it, it could be the winning formula for RAN I reckon.
SEA 1000: the wrong way to boost strategic ties with Tokyo
The Shortfin Barracuda is starting to grow on me. If we can sort out the IP issues and the yanks allow the AN/BYG-1 to be installed in it, it could be the winning formula for RAN I reckon.
It is now looking that the Australian dollar will possibly drop below 60 cents US and stay there for an extended period, great for exports, very bad for anything requiing foreign exchange. This alone could literally double the cost of on overseas submarine build and render the project unaffordable.
Perhaps now with the pendulum swinging back the other way it may be worthwhile recalculating the anticipated costs of overseas, design and build vs. overseas design and local build, or even local design and build. That is unless too much damage has already been done to local capability, perhaps with the deliberate intent of making a local option impossible.
Perhaps now with the pendulum swinging back the other way it may be worthwhile recalculating the anticipated costs of overseas, design and build vs. overseas design and local build, or even local design and build. That is unless too much damage has already been done to local capability, perhaps with the deliberate intent of making a local option impossible.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
When you see another article published like this one, you only have to scroll to the bottom of the page and look at the details of the author, it seems our friend Mr Rex Patrick is a mate of Senator Xenophon and indeed travelled with Xenophon's on his recent little 'junket' to Japan too!
I wonder if the taxpayer (via Xenophon's expense account), paid for Mr Patrick's little holiday in Japan???
IMO Xenophon needed to go to japan. Apart from Abbott his is probably the only other person who has talked to anyone in Japan about a $20-$50 billion project. Looks like Rex went along as adviser to Xenophon. Which is what ASPI generally does, provide eggheads and techies for politicians.
ASPI isn't a normal media outlet. Everything is published under creative commons as its a think tank that covers most sides of politics. It is in fact established by the Australian government and partly sponsored by the defense department.
And?
I think you need to take your blinkers off John, the majority of professional commentators have links to particular interest's, even those who are saying things you agree with.
The people who publish at The Strategist (and the Lowy Interpreter) are not just in-house wonks. They solicit opinion pieces from all over the place. From academics, but also politicians, occasionally military people, defence industry and the defence associations. Just for reference...
In this instance, I'm pretty sure that Mr Patrick does not work for ASPI. I believe he is a consultant.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Obviously we have differing opinions regarding Xenophon and his motivations and that's fair enough.
As far as Rex Patrick being 'part of ASPI' I can't see any evidence of that, his name and details don't appear on either the ASPI or AspiStrategist websites, as fair as I can tell this is his one and only article published by that organisation, there are of course many articles published on those sites by a 'contributor', doesn't mean that they are part of that particular organisation, if you know differently, I'd like to know.
What I do know about Rex Patrick is that he is a former submariner and apparently runs a consulting business called "Acoustic Force".
I also understand he is a critic of the Government and according to a report in The Australian from about a years or so ago (which I can't get to now because I don't have a subscription to The Oz), but it was a reported he had issue where he was complaining about "the Defence Department cutting his contract because he has been an outspoken public critic of defence policy".
Anyway, my point is simple, I don't think he is an 'independent' and 'unbiased' commentator, especially when the article includes the stupid 'Captain's pick' line that gets thrown around.
And that is why whenever any article 'for or against' is written in publications, I always look to see who wrote the article and you can often see the motivation of that person (read any article from the Fairfax press and it often paints a completely different picture to the Murdoch press and visa versa).
Just my opinion of course!!!
Bluey 006
Member
Glad you brought this up Volk, i have been thinking it for a long time, anyone involved in the industry commenting here or anywhere else - have a vested interest somewhere, and often when people have vested interest often it is hard to be completely objective. Or their entire career has been spent in one industry, service or department and they have been conditioned to think a certain way.
On the other hand many of the " enthusiasts" who have no vested interest, can think creatively and independently but are usually less knowledgeable on the topics, or not in tune with operational,engineering and fiscal realities.
Food for thought.
I guess that is the benefit of a board like this, open discussion where all can contribute and share their opinions , giving us discussions which enhance everyone's knowledge and spawn then develop new or unique ideas.
Keep it up team.
Last edited:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Seriously?
Mate, I don't know what you problem is (and I don't particularly care either), but I certainly don't have 'blinkers on', in fact I'm more than open to seeing what anyone writes or says, doesn't meant that I have to be blind to the motivations of the author of that particular article. V, if you believe everything your read, well good on you, maybe you should get the blinkers off yourself.
My simple point was (and you will see what I wrote above in my reply to SingrayOZ), that whenever an article is written by anyone, 'for or against', you need to look at the motivation of the person that wrote that article, simple as that, if you are trying read something else into my comments, then go for your life!
Here's a couple of links to older articles written that contain the comments of Mr Rex Patrick:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/keeping-collins-afloat-ludicrous-expert-20121209-2b3zb.html
And:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/expert-slams-flawed-submarines-report-20120118-1tdwb.html
It appears to me that Mr Patrick has regularly put himself up as an 'expert' in submarine matters in the past (shades of Airpower Australia perhaps??). He has previously suggested that Collins is a waste of money and apart from that, they should in fact be replaced with smaller European 'off the shelf' submarines too.
So knowing that, why wouldn't I be surprised that he would be critical of the so called 'Option J'.
What I find a joke is that in the past he was quoted as saying that he, "fears the push for another Australian-designed and built submarine program puts job creation for South Australia ahead of national security" and now that he has teamed up with Xenophon he appears to be "all for construction in Australia, South Australia in particular".
Seriously! They guy appears to be a tree blowing in the wind, one minute Collins is crap and replace them with smaller European MOTS submarines and now he's anti the so called "option J", what will his next opinion piece be? Maybe build American SSN's here instead??
Xenophon I don't think is the worst politician out there and has shown he can work with both teams and be pretty reasonable. IMO better than the Clive Palmers and the nutters that generally have control. Hes asking the questions that pretty much every south Australian liberal wants to ask. So I wouldn't say hes out of line.
Obviously being a south Australian senator, he has south Australia's priorities quite high on his list. Its not a secret.
A thinktank isn't an unbiased source of information like newspapers are supposed to be. A thinktank is typically funded by advocates for advocates. ASPI is one of the better ones, you have liberal and labor funded ones and ones run by nutters too, like Air Power Australia.
ASPI covers the spectrum, you can find peices for and against local construction by different groups/individuals.
I would love to know what options there are for local support or local build of japanese submarines. Are submarines the best way to tie Australia and japan together..
Obviously being a south Australian senator, he has south Australia's priorities quite high on his list. Its not a secret.
A thinktank isn't an unbiased source of information like newspapers are supposed to be. A thinktank is typically funded by advocates for advocates. ASPI is one of the better ones, you have liberal and labor funded ones and ones run by nutters too, like Air Power Australia.
ASPI covers the spectrum, you can find peices for and against local construction by different groups/individuals.
I would love to know what options there are for local support or local build of japanese submarines. Are submarines the best way to tie Australia and japan together..
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Xenophon is a very clever and smart politician, but a politician all the same (like the rest of them), he's smart enough to pick the fights that are worth fighting for that will help his political views.
And obviously backing a submarine build in SA at all cost is in his political interests, in fact he has recently said that he was going to recruit people to represent his party to run against sitting LNP members in the next Federal election, so he playing the game as you expect him to do (and the less said about nutters like Clive Palmer the better!).
As far as ASPI is concerned, yes it is by far one of the better think tanks and I have no problem with ASPI itself whatsoever, but again, my point was about the person who 'contributed' the article and making the very obvious observation (in my opinion) that his article was biased, simple as that.
Realistically there is no true unbiased reporting anywhere, every single person who expresses a view is pushing their particular agenda, and when it comes to the 'submarine question' we are all going to be constantly bombarded with views from both sides of the fence until the Government makes an announcement at the end of the year (or early next year), and probably well beyond too.
Interesting read and as discussed in other posts I'm no fan of Japans inclusion for the tender of SEA 1000.However I did like the suggestion of a smaller project with Japan.
When army where looking for self propelled artillery South Korea was one of the final two candidates.Even though the project feel through I felt South Korea may have been a good option if it both satisfied army and for the reason of diversity of military supply. Not such a big project to alienate any of our key North Asian trading partners and not such an important military asset that a substitute could not be found if supply for what ever reason could not be continued. A much smaller poject with Japan may also be good to test both Japans commercial military export capabilities and further see what if any reactions come from her neigbours..
Regarding Xenophon and Mr Patrick and reasons for and if any political agenda's' has cause to answer, well I think the various posts have covered this well enough. I'm sure we all know the importance of objectivity and keeping in perspective an authors intent.
Regards S
I missed this one.
A state of the art maintenance facility was constructed in Perth to progressively take over submarine maintenance as ASC started building the SEA 1000 boats. Besides the Adelaide facility is large enough to fit four Collins sized boats under cover as it is without modification.
Also the Collins build included a massive amount of concurrent activity as a couple of boats were under construction at any given time. With a rolling build this rate would be slowed, possibly halved, meaning less space would be required for new constriction and the remaining space could share the maintenance load with the west. Considering you would expect updated systems from the latest submarine would likely be desired for the existing boats conducting a full cycle docking of an existing boat concurrently in the same location as building a new boat would clearly have its advantages.
ThyssenKrupp Says Australia Could Be Submarine Service Hub - WSJ
From export to Canada to "service hub" for Asia, how many lip-services TKMS is making now?
Seriously, consider S Korea is producing Type214 and exporting to Indonesia, it will be logical for the kimchi tigers to be the service hub. Singapore and Indian will surely service their own sub, I wonder how many "potential customer" are still available.
And, as long as china keep their aggression to their neighbors and our allies, I don't see how buying or not buying submarine from Japan will make any different: our submarine will be use against china anyway.
China respects strategic realism, not flattery
From export to Canada to "service hub" for Asia, how many lip-services TKMS is making now?
Seriously, consider S Korea is producing Type214 and exporting to Indonesia, it will be logical for the kimchi tigers to be the service hub. Singapore and Indian will surely service their own sub, I wonder how many "potential customer" are still available.
And, as long as china keep their aggression to their neighbors and our allies, I don't see how buying or not buying submarine from Japan will make any different: our submarine will be use against china anyway.
China respects strategic realism, not flattery
The Germans actually hold Australian industry in very high regard and would have loved to have secure the original submarine project back in the 80s. The only people who don't think Australia can build world class submarines are people who believe the political spin used to justify sending the work off shore. From memory the Collins class actually experienced fewer problems that South Korea's or India's locally built German boats.
John, I don't believe anything Rex Patrick writes, he was a combat systems operator, not an engineer or boat driver, his speciality was acoustics, what a submarine does once it gets where its going, not how it gets there. His opinions are a mile off what those who actually know what RAN submarines need to be able to do think.
I am, I must admit, getting a little frustrated with some of your posts, you make some very good points but yes you do appear to me to be quite blinkered. You appear to be very politically biased and as such automatically dismissive of any points that do not fit your particular views. Anyone who supports Australian industry in your view is putting jobs above capability, apart from being inaccurate and misinformed I personally find it insulting. I no longer work in the industry but many outstanding people I know still do, people who are as good as any working elsewhere in the world, people who, so long as our political classes pull their heads out of their ....... are perfectly capable of building a class of next generation submarines, destroyers, frigates, whatever.
The problem John is political not industrial, one side has made it about local jobs and the other about foreign alliances (and bashing the other side with trumped up failures), both missing the point of what was achieved and what it can still be grown into. Your posts are just a reminder of the tactics being used by those determined to kill the industry for purely political reasons.
The irony is local submarine construction started as a concept under Frazer and would have proceeded no matter who was in power for the simple reason no one was building the sort of boats we needed. Just imagine how different things would be if the project had been kicked off under a Peacock or Howard government in the 80s instead of a Hawke one? Just imagine if instead of a stick with which to beat Kym Beazley to political death with it was a Liberal baby? Just imagine how different the spin would be if there was no political mileage to be made over the projects difficulties. Its not that hard actually just look what the government was saying about the Collins class and ASC in 2007, after 11 years and nationalising ASC there was no way Labor could be blamed anymore so all the bad press disappeared over night and all we heard was how great things were because of the hard work of the government.
Not necessarily, While producing the vessel's and having a mild export success S Korea is also in the position Australia used to be in and that is being at the end of the supply line while Australia on the other hand for all it's faults is in a prime position for work both in the Pacific and Indian oceans.
Singapore may service there own submarine's but to my knowledge they have never built them nor have they shown any interest in building them and I have not been able to find anything on them doing heavy maintenance such as we do with the Collin's every decade or so.
We also shouldn't make the assumption that we will only be doing work on boat's of the brand we are operating, I'm not in the know on the technicalities or legalities of it but I don't imagine it would be impossible for us to maintain or update boat's for other nations such as Malaysia, India etc etc .. Just spit balling here.
- Status