AUKUS Treaty NEWS ONLY

Dolgoth Sepk said:
Why spend 300billion on nuclear submarines with uncertain delivery timelines instead of 30 billion on surface ships that can be delivered within five years, especially when your surface fleet struggles with routine patrols?
Click to expand...
Because the Trident subs are out of hull life and reactor life or will be soon. They must be replaced or the entire sea-based deterrent fails.

The issue with the surface fleet will honestly probably take more than 300billion to fix as well, as it requires more shipyards, more repair yards, and in general a hell of an increase in maintenance expenses on the fleet. Plus building replacement ships for all the ones just flat worn out by deferred maintenance.
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
The aircraft emergency frequency (also known in the USA as Guard) is a frequency used on the aircraft band reserved for emergency communications for aircraft in distress. The frequencies are 121.5 MHz for civilian, also known as International Air Distress (IAD), International Aeronautical Emergency Frequency,[1] or VHF Guard,[1] and 243.0 MHz—the second harmonic of VHF guard—for military use, also known as Military Air Distress (MAD), NATO Combined Distress and Emergency Frequency,[1] or UHF Guard.[1] Earlier emergency locator transmitters (ELTs / EPIRBs) used the guard frequencies to transmit. As of February 1, 2009 satellite monitoring of the 121.5 and 243 MHz ELT (EPIRB) frequencies ceased, whereas an additional band from 406.0 to 406.1 MHz is now used exclusively by modern emergency locator transmitters (EPIRB).[1]


Guard frequencies can be used for distress calls, such as Mayday calls, and urgency calls, such as Pan-pan calls.
form wiki
Click to expand...
Yes, and ATC does not listen to that on a regular basis. Or did not listen to that while I was playing with planes.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Because the Trident subs are out of hull life and reactor life or will be soon. They must be replaced or the entire sea-based deterrent fails.
Click to expand...
What does Australia have to do with Trident submarines?
Scott Kenny said:
The issue with the surface fleet will honestly probably take more than 300billion to fix as well, as it requires more shipyards, more repair yards, and in general a hell of an increase in maintenance expenses on the fleet. Plus building replacement ships for all the ones just flat worn out by deferred maintenance.
Click to expand...
I don't think purchasing warships from Japan or South Korea requires so much money and time.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, and ATC does not listen to that on a regular basis. Or did not listen to that while I was playing with planes.
Click to expand...
If a distressed aircraft used this channel to call Mayday on the same day, what would happen?
Just because I haven’t heard of it, does that mean nobody uses it?
Don't change the subject，Why didn't Australia monitor [the international guard channel] instead of 'you don't have to listen'?
 
One suspects that that particular practice by some ATCs in recent times of not keeping GUARD monitored was one of the many legacies of the never to be sufficiently bedamed enough 'Peace Dividend'. You would have thought that would have been fixed in the aftermath of 9/11 though.
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
What does Australia have to do with Trident submarines?
Click to expand...
Because the same shipyard that is building the Trident replacements is also building the Virginias. And IIRC the priority right now is the Trident replacements because the Tridents are out of life. Only so many workers to go around, so the Virginias are slipping.



Dolgoth Sepk said:
If a distressed aircraft used this channel to call Mayday on the same day, what would happen?
Just because I haven’t heard of it, does that mean nobody uses it?
Don't change the subject，Why didn't Australia monitor [the international guard channel] instead of 'you don't have to listen'?
Click to expand...
If you are calling on Guard, you are calling for anyone in the air for help.

Towers do not HAVE TO monitor GUARD, so in order to save manning and money they don't have a person listening to it.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Because the same shipyard that is building the Trident replacements is also building the Virginias. And IIRC the priority right now is the Trident replacements because the Tridents are out of life. Only so many workers to go around, so the Virginias are slipping.
Click to expand...
The timelines for submarine upgrades required by the UK and the US are entirely different from Australia's. From my perspective, AUKUS is merely Australia footing the bill to help the UK and the US share their submarine costs.
Scott Kenny said:
If you are calling on Guard, you are calling for anyone in the air for help.

Towers do not HAVE TO monitor GUARD, so in order to save manning and money they don't have a person listening to it.
Click to expand...
Provide the official documents stating that Australian air traffic control does not monitor GUARD frequency, without personal interpretation
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
The timelines for submarine upgrades required by the UK and the US are entirely different from Australia's. From my perspective, AUKUS is merely Australia footing the bill to help the UK and the US share their submarine costs.
Click to expand...
Too bad, because even the USN is getting shorted on Virginias.



Dolgoth Sepk said:
Provide the official documents stating that Australian air traffic control does not monitor GUARD frequency, without personal interpretation
Click to expand...
I'm not aussie, I do not have access to official documents.

I have, however seen what happens as soon as something is no longer required to be done when the budget is tight.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Too bad, because even the USN is getting shorted on Virginias.
Click to expand...
So does Australia need to foot the bill for the US Virginia？
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not aussie, I do not have access to official documents.

I have, however seen what happens as soon as something is no longer required to be done when the budget is tight.
Click to expand...
The budget is so tight that has allocated 300 billion AUD to AUKUS
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
So does Australia need to foot the bill for the US Virginia？
Click to expand...
Because Oz needs to get industry developed up to be able to provide parts and maintenance, and they're leasing 3 plus buying 2 outright.


Dolgoth Sepk said:
The budget is so tight that has allocated 300 billion AUD to AUKUS
Click to expand...
And not to the air traffic controllers.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Because Oz needs to get industry developed up to be able to provide parts and maintenance, and they're leasing 3 plus buying 2 outright.

And not to the air traffic controllers.
Click to expand...
It sounds like I want to buy a 30 million-dollar mansion but can't even afford my daily meals.

good luck
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
It sounds like I want to buy a 30 million-dollar mansion but can't even afford my daily meals.

good luck
Click to expand...
Priorities.

Back in the day, when ELTs/EPIRBs operated on 121.5, it was common to monitor 121.5 while you were on a cross-country flight in the US. There's a LOT of the US that is a long way from anyone that can help you. Every summer you'd hear about a private pilot doing a cross-country and picking up an ELT, flying a couple of cross-tracks over it to help locate it for the tower to send Search and Rescue out, then going on their way. In 49/50 states (Never heard an instance of this in Hawaii, but I'm sure there's some deep enough canyons there).

Towers could set a radio to monitor, but between range and hills interfering it was very unusual for a tower to be able to hear an ELT.

If you can't hear it anyway, there's no meaning to monitoring the channel. If there's no meaning, eventually someone changes the regulations so it isn't required. And very shortly after it is no longer required, someone else stops monitoring it entirely.

Tell me, can a ship halfway between Oz and NZ radio a tower on either coast? No. Curve of the Earth is in the way. You'd have to bounce off a satellite to reach them.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Priorities.

Back in the day, when ELTs/EPIRBs operated on 121.5, it was common to monitor 121.5 while you were on a cross-country flight in the US. There's a LOT of the US that is a long way from anyone that can help you. Every summer you'd hear about a private pilot doing a cross-country and picking up an ELT, flying a couple of cross-tracks over it to help locate it for the tower to send Search and Rescue out, then going on their way. In 49/50 states (Never heard an instance of this in Hawaii, but I'm sure there's some deep enough canyons there).

Towers could set a radio to monitor, but between range and hills interfering it was very unusual for a tower to be able to hear an ELT.

If you can't hear it anyway, there's no meaning to monitoring the channel. If there's no meaning, eventually someone changes the regulations so it isn't required. And very shortly after it is no longer required, someone else stops monitoring it entirely.

Tell me, can a ship halfway between Oz and NZ radio a tower on either coast? No. Curve of the Earth is in the way. You'd have to bounce off a satellite to reach them.
Click to expand...
The Australian government has admitted they do not monitor GUARD frequency.
Please provide the specific document name, chapter, and paragraph in Australian air traffic control manuals that state GUARD frequency can be ignored.
 
Aukus is a disaster that has just become a bigger disaster after the antics in the white house today.

We should not be paying $$ to help the US build subs they probably cannot build even for themselves, that are somehow going to save us from our biggest economic partner.

Going to be very interesting how the Aus govt reframes this mess.

"Don't think of an elephant"

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Dolgoth Sepk said:
The Australian government has admitted they do not monitor GUARD frequency.
Please provide the specific document name, chapter, and paragraph in Australian air traffic control manuals that state GUARD frequency can be ignored.
Click to expand...
What part of "you cannot hear someone calling when they're below the radar horizon" are you not understanding?
 
Scott Kenny said:
What part of "you cannot hear someone calling when they're below the radar horizon" are you not understanding?
Click to expand...
The absence of detected activity 'monitoring occurred but nothing was heard' and the government's formal acknowledgment of no surveillance 'the government states no monitoring took place' are two entirely distinct issues.
You are substituting the first issue for the second.
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
The absence of detected activity 'monitoring occurred but nothing was heard' and the government's formal acknowledgment of no surveillance 'the government states no monitoring took place' are two entirely distinct issues.
You are substituting the first issue for the second.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that the two conditions happen at the same time.

I am assuming a timeline from one to the other.

1) 121.5 VHF cannot be heard unless the sender is above the radar/radio horizon. This was likely realized in the 1960s or 70s.
2) government bureaucrat realizes that because nothing can be heard unless in perfect conditions, monitoring GUARD from the ground is a waste of time. So it is therefore no longer required. Likely 1980s.
3) now that it is no longer required, it is by definition a waste of money so it is no longer done at all. 1990s.
4) ~30 years after control towers stopped monitoring GUARD, some PLAN ships decide to throw a live-fire in the middle of a traffic zone and see if they can pull a USS Vincennes and bag themselves an airliner.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You are assuming that the two conditions happen at the same time.
Click to expand...
The responsibilities for these two issues are entirely different. The failure to monitor communications is Australia's own problem. If monitoring was conducted but no signals were detected, then China's fleet could be accused of using inappropriate communication channels.
When the Australian government itself admits that no monitoring GUARD, I don't understand why you're trying to defend the Australian government.
Scott Kenny said:
4) ~30 years after control towers stopped monitoring GUARD,
Click to expand...
Please provide the specific document name, chapter, and paragraph in Australian air traffic control manuals
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
Please provide the specific document name, chapter, and paragraph in Australian air traffic control manuals
Click to expand...
I am not Australian, I do not have access to such.

I have been attempting to explain why it makes sense that Oz would not monitor GUARD. If you're not able to understand what I am saying, perhaps you should ask someone who is a native English reader to explain it to you in your native language.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I am not Australian, I do not have access to such.

I have been attempting to explain why it makes sense that Oz would not monitor GUARD.
Click to expand...
The FAA or similar institutions in Australia only checks whether you are complying with the regulations, not what you 'think' or assume.
If China issued the notification in accordance with regulations while Australia failed to monitor as required by the regulations, then the responsibility lies solely with Australia. Whether the notification was received is a separate matter
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
The FAA or similar institutions in Australia only checks whether you are complying with the regulations, not what you 'think' or assume.
If China issued the notification in accordance with regulations while Australia failed to monitor as required by the regulations, then the responsibility lies solely with Australia. Whether the notification was received is a separate matter
Click to expand...
I'm starting to think I don't have the crayons to explain this to you.

It is NOT POSSIBLE TO RECEIVE a VHF transmission from a surface ship located where the PLAN ships were conducting their live fire at any Australian aircraft control tower.

The ICAO requires that a control tower be able to communicate on 121.5, which is handled by their installed radios. It does not require monitoring. https://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2015 SRWG2/SP03_ICAO Emergency frequency - rev.pdf
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm starting to think I don't have the crayons to explain this to you.

It is NOT POSSIBLE TO RECEIVE a VHF transmission from a surface ship located where the PLAN ships were conducting their live fire at any Australian aircraft control tower.

The ICAO requires that a control tower be able to communicate on 121.5, which is handled by their installed radios. It does not require monitoring. https://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2015 SRWG2/SP03_ICAO Emergency frequency - rev.pdf
Click to expand...
The crux of the matter is whether China's actions are grounded in international rules, while Australia itself has failed to properly implement these rules.
Regardless of how you attempt to explain or justify it, this cannot alter the fact that Australia is the one that fell short of compliance.
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
The crux of the matter is whether China's actions are grounded in international rules, while Australia itself has failed to properly implement these rules.
Regardless of how you attempt to explain or justify it, this cannot alter the fact that Australia is the one that fell short of compliance.
Click to expand...

China widely flouts international rules and rulings. Its sovereignty claims over the SCS contradict UNCLOS and UN arbitration.
 
Arjen said:
Show those rules, please, and in which way Australia broke them.
Click to expand...
Can't you hear or see the Australian government's statements? Or do you claim to represent the Australian government?
Josh_TN said:
China widely flouts international rules and rulings. Its sovereignty claims over the SCS contradict UNCLOS and UN arbitration.
Click to expand...

When the US was spying on Merkel, I didn’t see you Europeans being so morally outraged.
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
The crux of the matter is whether China's actions are grounded in international rules, while Australia itself has failed to properly implement these rules.
Regardless of how you attempt to explain or justify it, this cannot alter the fact that Australia is the one that fell short of compliance.
Click to expand...
THE ICAO DOES NOT REQUIRE AN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER TO MONITOR GUARD.

I posted the ICAO PDF in the comment you quoted.
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
Can't you hear or see the Australian government's statements?
Click to expand...
I take it you can't answer my question which rules Australia broke. Noted.
Dolgoth Sepk said:
Or do you claim to represent the Australian government?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
Just out of curiosity: do you represent any particular government? Wait, let me guess.
Dolgoth Sepk said:
When the US was spying on Merkel, I didn’t see you Europeans being so morally outraged.
Click to expand...
Whataboutism.
 
Is this a AUKUS Treaty NEWS ONLY thread or not?
 
GK Dundas said:
Until the Americans decide to throw you under the Bus .
Click to expand...

With the current administration, it is certainly possible, though so far there are no indications of policy reversal.

The Chinese on the other hand seem quite clear which part of the bus they intend to place Australia in…one wonders if the USN has ever done a live fire exercise in the Tasmanian sea, let alone with minimal notification or approval.
 
Wow looks like we are going to be writing out more cheques.............

www.dailymail.co.uk

Urgent warning that China could be rehearsing for attack on Australia

Australia's former top defence bureaucrat warned China's presence along the country's coastline serves a specific and terrifying purpose.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

The same day the US is telling us to increase our defence budget, all of a sudden, it seems the Chinese are getting ready to attack.

They must have decided Aus is a bigger island than Taiwan and if you're going to go for it, best to get the bigger one.

If only they had satellites, they could have saved big $$ on fuel. :cool:

Regards,
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom