Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

[GTX]

But ultimately the current Australian political system figures that the price is worth it.

Indeed and with both parties that count showing support for the acquisition and broader AUKUS deal + support within the general public still there (despite the noisy/naive minority) this program will still go ahead.

One also needs to keep in mind the changed strategic circumstances facing Australia and the analysis that more needs to be spent on Defence. As will be highlighted more in the coming weeks with the release of the public version of the DSR, Australian Defence is about to undergo arguably the most significant change since WWII. Part of this includes a move to increase the Defence budget to a sustained 2.5% of GDP or higher - and for context, it has averaged around 1.8% for the last 30+yrs with only short peaks higher) based upon individual acquisitions).

I have spent nearly the last 30yrs in/around Defence and I have not seen the level of emphasis and urgency like now. To give you just one small, though potentially very telling, example of how the current Govt is taking this seriously (apart from the SSN decision): Typically the Deputy PM can choose his/her portfolio and to be honest, historically Defence is not seen as a desired portfolio by either Labor or Conservative politicians. That changed when Richard Marles deliberately requested to become Defence Minister in 2022. The Government also initiated the DSR which will, as mentioned earlier, drive the most significant change in Australia's Defence posture since the end of WWII. The SSNs are the headline now but the world is changing and much more is coming despite what some may attempt.

 

[GTX]

Canada will need to replace its ex RN Upholder boats. Perhaps the Canadians and Australians with help from the UK or France could develop a new class of SSK.

OR potentially Canada also goes the SSN route...

 

[GTX]

Further to my comments above, the following is also well worth the read when it comes to Australian Defence, AUKUS and the SSNs:

A pacifist agenda for AUKUS

 

[NeilChapman]

Canada will need to replace its ex RN Upholder boats. Perhaps the Canadians and Australians with help from the UK or France could develop a new class of SSK.

OR potentially Canada also goes the SSN route...

Not from the US it seems.

After AUKUS announcement, the US slams shut nuclear propulsion door

Explore the US response to the AUKUS announcement and the debate over nuclear propulsion. Stay informed with Naval Technology

www.naval-technology.com

 

[NeilChapman]

Further to my comments above, the following is also well worth the read when it comes to Australian Defence, AUKUS and the SSNs:

A pacifist agenda for AUKUS

I'll buy that.

"
According to a report by the Australian Industry Group, manufacturing is the most important source of innovation in the economy, using more technology, robotics, and advanced knowledge than any other sector. This makes it a critical driver of economic growth and job creation.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the manufacturing sector spent $4.7 billion on research and development in 2019-20, the second biggest business expenditure on R&D (BERD) by sector in the economy.
"

You have to build things.

 

[starviking]

Canada will need to replace its ex RN Upholder boats. Perhaps the Canadians and Australians with help from the UK or France could develop a new class of SSK.

OR potentially Canada also goes the SSN route...

Not from the US it seems.

After AUKUS announcement, the US slams shut nuclear propulsion door

Explore the US response to the AUKUS announcement and the debate over nuclear propulsion. Stay informed with Naval Technology

www.naval-technology.com

There is wriggle-room though.

…said that the sharing of nuclear technology with countries other than those in the AUKUS alliance would not be considered.

New members may join the alliance. Also, the UK could decide to aid Canada on its own.

 

[starviking]

Canada and Italy are among countries who looked seriously at building nuclear submarines. Both drew back and operated conventional submarines instead.
Japan for obvious reasons has built up a formidable force of conventional submarines.
So it would be quite reasonable for Australia to take another look.
Canada will need to replace its ex RN Upholder boats. Perhaps the Canadians and Australians with help from the UK or France could develop a new class of SSK.

Isn't this where we came in? Australia building SSKs from France? And Canada of course had a wonderful experience with the UKs last SSK design (now almost 40 years old).

Canada’s experience with the Upholders is perhaps more indicative of a country whose government has neglected defence for decades, than any major flaws in the Upholders, which are now giving sterling service.

 

[jeffb]

Support for potential Taiwan conflict not part of AUKUS submarine deal, defence minister says

Defence Minister Richard Marles says the federal government made no promises to the United States that Australia would support it in any future conflict over Taiwan in exchange for American nuclear submarines.

www.abc.net.au

Hugh White was the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper.

AUKUS commits Australia to fight China if America does, simple | Lowy Institute

Whatever the flag, Washington would not sell nuclear-powered boats unless it could count on them in war over Taiwan.

www.lowyinstitute.org

 

[kaiserd]

Canada will need to replace its ex RN Upholder boats. Perhaps the Canadians and Australians with help from the UK or France could develop a new class of SSK.

OR potentially Canada also goes the SSN route...

Not from the US it seems.

After AUKUS announcement, the US slams shut nuclear propulsion door

Explore the US response to the AUKUS announcement and the debate over nuclear propulsion. Stay informed with Naval Technology

www.naval-technology.com

There is wriggle-room though.

…said that the sharing of nuclear technology with countries other than those in the AUKUS alliance would not be considered.

New members may join the alliance. Also, the UK could decide to aid Canada on its own.

The UK can’t do that. They are now irrevocably “tied to the hip” of the US re: nuclear sub technology (even more so than previously).
There is little to nothing they could share without US approval.

 

[starviking]

<SNIP>

There is wriggle-room though.

…said that the sharing of nuclear technology with countries other than those in the AUKUS alliance would not be considered.

New members may join the alliance. Also, the UK could decide to aid Canada on its own.

The UK can’t do that. They are now irrevocably “tied to the hip” of the US re: nuclear sub technology (even more so than previously).
There is little to nothing they could share without US approval.

I know the PWR-3 is derived from a US Reactor, but there is nothing about export controls in the public domain (that I can find anyway). Even if there are controls, the US may not want to block a UK-Canadian deal.

 

[Josh_TN]

If the Canucks were willing to pay for SSNs I can’t see the U.S. getting in their way. I think there’s about as much chance of that as the sunsetting in the East.

 

[timmymagic]

If the Canucks were willing to pay for SSNs I can’t see the U.S. getting in their way. I think there’s about as much chance of that as the sunsetting in the East.

To be honest I think the US would be overjoyed if the Canadian's went for SSN's.

Evidently, $4.3 billion of that will be a new large vessel dry dock at the Australian Marine Complex. Will that dry dock be large enough for Virginia-class submarines? I don't know, but I'd make it at least large enough for Columbia-class submarines. You never know what maintenance work will come along. Heck, if they're building one, they may as well build two for twice the price. They'll be happy they did 15 years from now. The AMC is currently home to some 150 business and is likely to grow.

$4.3bn for a dry dock?

The Indian's were building a 310m x 75m dry dock which would take ships up to Suezmax size (275m, up to 200,000dwt tankers) for around $200m (c$300m AUD). Even accounting for labour costs etc. I would have thought $1bn would get you similar in Australia. Make it $1.5bn and you'll get a lot of dock eqpt like a Goliath Crane (the one at Rosyth for the QE build was around $25m in todays money) and an enormous build shed. You could build an aircraft carrier let alone a Columbia Class...

 

[GTX]

Hugh White was the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper.

AUKUS commits Australia to fight China if America does, simple | Lowy Institute

Whatever the flag, Washington would not sell nuclear-powered boats unless it could count on them in war over Taiwan.

www.lowyinstitute.org

So what? It is just his opinion. He has not been involved with any Govt role since about 2000 too so just like former prime ministers expressing their opinions, it carries no weight in terms of actual Australian Govt policy.

BTW, I am kind of amused by the fact that you dug up Hugh White. Would I by default think that you also supported his thinking on Australia adopting nuclear weapons?

https://www.aspi.org.au/video/australia-and-nuclear-weapons-hugh-white

NOTE: I emphasise again that the AUKUS deal and the AUKUS-SSNs are not about Nuclear weapons.

 

[kaiserd]

<SNIP>

There is wriggle-room though.

…said that the sharing of nuclear technology with countries other than those in the AUKUS alliance would not be considered.

New members may join the alliance. Also, the UK could decide to aid Canada on its own.

The UK can’t do that. They are now irrevocably “tied to the hip” of the US re: nuclear sub technology (even more so than previously).
There is little to nothing they could share without US approval.

I know the PWR-3 is derived from a US Reactor, but there is nothing about export controls in the public domain (that I can find anyway). Even if there are controls, the US may not want to block a UK-Canadian deal.

I’m not going to belabour the point but in reality almost everything the UK now does re: their nuclear submarine industry/ building is a joint project with the US.

I don’t see a particular reason why US would particularly seek to block Canada from, say, joining AUKUS, if that was what Canada choose to do but based on pure practicalities there can’t be a UK-Canada deal, any such deal would necessarily need to be US-UK-Canada in nature with the US an active participant (only US approval/ acquiescence would not be enough, the US needed to build, supply, license major components, etc.).

 

[NeilChapman]

.

OR potentially Canada also goes the SSN route...

Not from the US it seems.

After AUKUS announcement, the US slams shut nuclear propulsion door

Explore the US response to the AUKUS announcement and the debate over nuclear propulsion. Stay informed with Naval Technology

www.naval-technology.com

There is wriggle-room though.

…said that the sharing of nuclear technology with countries other than those in the AUKUS alliance would not be considered.

New members may join the alliance. Also, the UK could decide to aid Canada on its own.

The UK can’t do that. They are now irrevocably “tied to the hip” of the US re: nuclear sub technology (even more so than previously).
There is little to nothing they could share without US approval.

• Fiscal Year 2021-22: Canada spent 1.32% of its GDP on defence.

Even if, I'd be suprised if the Canadian government has the commitment for it.

 

[Volkodav]

Hugh White was the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper.

AUKUS commits Australia to fight China if America does, simple | Lowy Institute

Whatever the flag, Washington would not sell nuclear-powered boats unless it could count on them in war over Taiwan.

www.lowyinstitute.org

So what? It is just his opinion. He has not been involved with any Govt role since about 2000 too so just like former prime ministers expressing their opinions, it carries no weight in terms of actual Australian Govt policy.

BTW, I am kind of amused by the fact that you dug up Hugh White. Would I by default think that you also supported his thinking on Australia adopting nuclear weapons?

https://www.aspi.org.au/video/australia-and-nuclear-weapons-hugh-white

NOTE: I emphasise again that the AUKUS deal and the AUKUS-SSNs are not about Nuclear weapons.

I listened to Huge Whites Sleepwalking to War on Audible, some of it was very good but when he started talking about SSNs his language changed, and he lost any sense of impartiality, switching to pushing an agenda. There is a lot of this going on at the moment, individuals and groups following facts, logic and science until it doesn't match their beliefs, then they throw the whole lot out the window.

What we have is the equivalent of people suggesting we go for updated Mustangs, with all the latest materials and systems, instead of F-35s, because they don't like jet engines.

On Canada, they would love SSNs and are currently shopping for new, large SSKs. There are in a world of pain because their SSN adventure coincided with the wall of the Warsaw Pact and the Peace Dividend, they needed new Subs and the Upholders were what was available. The Netherlands and Germany are also struggling with their SSKs, Norway is shopping for new boats. All are dramatically increasing investment because they have all had issues, submarines, whether conventional or nuclear, are not easy, they are not cheap.

On Keating, he is the one, who years ago, credited Suharto's rise to power in Indonesia being the key event that enabled Australia to decease defence spending because our region, almost overnight became more stable. Now he completely fails to recognise the reverse, Xi's rise to power in China has destablised the larger region.

This isn't about Australia expanding and encroaching on other nations, about Australia bullying other nations, Australia having Imperial ambitions, this is about the threatening behavior of the largest nation in the region forcing Australia to realise that we have need to pay more if we want to avert conflict. When threat levels are low you don't need to spend as much.

 

[NeilChapman]

$4.3bn for a dry dock?

The Indian's were building a 310m x 75m dry dock which would take ships up to Suezmax size (275m, up to 200,000dwt tankers) for around $200m (c$300m AUD). Even accounting for labour costs etc. I would have thought $1bn would get you similar in Australia. Make it $1.5bn and you'll get a lot of dock eqpt like a Goliath Crane (the one at Rosyth for the QE build was around $25m in todays money) and an enormous build shed. You could build an aircraft carrier let alone a Columbia Class...

It seemed like a lot to me as well.

Navy awards $1.7B contract to expand Portsmouth shipyard - Breaking Defense

The contract award to 381 Constructors is part of the Navy's $21 billion effort to restore the four public shipyards.

breakingdefense.com

Here's an article from 2021 where US$1.7b was authorized to expand and reconfigure” a dry dock complex at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine.

Perhaps there is more to do to prepare the harbor?

 

[jeffb]

Hugh White was the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper.

AUKUS commits Australia to fight China if America does, simple | Lowy Institute

Whatever the flag, Washington would not sell nuclear-powered boats unless it could count on them in war over Taiwan.

www.lowyinstitute.org

So what? It is just his opinion. He has not been involved with any Govt role since about 2000 too so just like former prime ministers expressing their opinions, it carries no weight in terms of actual Australian Govt policy.

It carries no weight in terms of Australian govt policy but it is illustrative of the realpolitik going on behind the scenes here as he's had real experience talking with the Americans at high level, as is the following:

From 2011, links from the article above:

Nobody keen to answer the big Taiwan question

As the first US marines start their training in Darwin under the regular rotation announced during President Barack Obama's visit last month, a far away election will give us an early reminder about the fine print that may be in the deal.

www.smh.com.au

In his blog, the former NSW premier Bob Carr declared that America's reaction to China ''displays all the neuroses of the world's most insecure empire, always imagining its enemies at work to bring it down''. Carr recalled a session in 1999 of the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue, the closed-door private diplomatic initiative run by the then Melbourne businessman Phil Scanlan (now consult-general in New York).

Richard Armitage, later to be George Bush's deputy secretary of state, talked about the prospect of war over Taiwan and demanded to know what would be Australia's role. ''Are these people nuts?'' is how Carr remembers ''the whispered response of all the Australians''.

Hugh White, the Australian National University strategist who recently set off a resounding debate with his essay urging a US-China power sharing agreement, was another participant. At the time he was a deputy secretary in our Defence Department, engaged on writing the 2000 defence white paper for the Howard government. White recalls giving the dialogue a rundown on Australia's defence planning, foreshadowing the white paper, and the following exchange. ''That's all very well, Hugh,'' Armitage cut in. ''But I really don't see the force structure you are developing giving you a lot of options to support us when the balloon goes up over Taiwan.''

''Well, Rich,'' White says he replied, ''you've got to understand that Australian defence policy is not based on the idea that we support the United States in those scenarios.'' ''Well, they ought to be,'' Armitage declared. ''What do you think this alliance is about?''

White then went over the 1976 defence white paper and the review of defence force structure by the then deputy defence secretary, Paul Dibb, positioning Australia after the Vietnam War. Armitage was not mollified. He recalled that Armitage ''in his inimitable way literally, not just metaphorically, thumped the table and said that in the event of a US-China conflict over Taiwan we'd expect Australia to be there''.

''And there was a lot of ambivalence in the room amongst the Australians as to whether we would or not,'' White said. ''That ambivalence included Coalition ministers.''

Has the US point of view changed in the intervening years? Going by Milley's interview on 7:30, saying he'd expect we'd be fighting shoulder to shoulder, I'd say no.

I think White's logic is reasonable, it IS unlikely the US would sell Australia subs, given their own shortage of subs, unless they're confident they can call on Australia for it's support with those subs, in a potential conflict with China that the US is predicting will start in the next 3-5 years.

 

[jeffb]

BTW, I am kind of amused by the fact that you dug up Hugh White. Would I by default think that you also supported his thinking on Australia adopting nuclear weapons?

https://www.aspi.org.au/video/australia-and-nuclear-weapons-hugh-white

NOTE: I emphasise again that the AUKUS deal and the AUKUS-SSNs are not about Nuclear weapons.

Ok, I have to ask, did you actually watch this video? Did you watch it with the sound off maybe?

I do absolutely support his thinking on Australia adopting nuclear weapons as he outlines here. But he's only talking about Australia obtaining nuclear weapons (maybe/possibly) if the US suffered some sort of Suez crisis the way the UK did in 1956 and then subsequently withdrew from South East Asia, withdrawing it's strategic nuclear deterrence with it; and then only if Korea and Japan decided to get nuclear weapons and then depending on what Indonesia decided to do *in those circumstances*.

I'd recommend the video to anyone looking for a brief, intelligent and nuanced discussion of Australia's nuclear weapon options.
So I guess thanks, GTX and I'll post the link to this talk over on the Australian Nuclear Weapons thread.

 

[GTX]

Opinion piece: It’s time to return fire against AUKUS naysayers

 

[GTX]

Gen Z challenge to sustain AUKUS submarine crews

 

[GTX]

Ok, I have to ask, did you actually watch this video? Did you watch it with the sound off maybe?

Yes I did - thanks for the smart arse comment

 

[GTX]

Navy submariners welcome AUKUS career opportunities

Ten of Australia's newest prospective submariners got a hands on experience of the job, with eyes on capitalising on the opportunities AUKUS will bring to the Navy and serving on Australia's future

www.defenceconnect.com.au

 

[timmymagic]

The Netherlands and Germany are also struggling with their SSKs, Norway is shopping for new boats

Both Norway and Germany have 'shopped' for boats...they've both got Type 212CD on order now. Albeit the German's have only ordered 2 so far (though to be fair to maintain current levels they'll only need 4 to replace the oldest Type 212).

Netherlands will be getting final bids this year, 3 bidders but only 2 really credible (don't think the French with a conventional Barracuda will get the nod after the Australia fiasco) either the Type 212CD in conjunction with Norway and Germany, or the A26 with Sweden.

 

[jeffb]

Ok, I have to ask, did you actually watch this video? Did you watch it with the sound off maybe?

Yes I did - thanks for the smart arse comment

It was a bit smart arsey, but then your reply to me pointing out that Marles's statement that the subs were not contingent on Australian support of a US led intervention over Taiwan were misleading at best, was both rude and dismissive.

You then went on to say you were amused that I'd 'dug up' Hugh White's opinion and linked to his talk in a way that suggested that it demonstrated he was some sort of kook.

So when I watched the video and found his opinions to be completely reasonable, I was, I'll admit, a little confused. Hence the 'smart arse' questions.

 

[Rickshaw]

Opinion piece: It’s time to return fire against AUKUS naysayers

Paywalled. Please print the text.

 

[jeffb]

This is a well balanced 'explainer' article from the AFR:

How Australia would actually use submarines in a war (in four maps)

If a conflict in the Asia-Pacific region broke out, what would it look like, and what roles could conventional and nuclear submarines play?

www.afr.com

 

[jeffb]

This appears to be an anything but balanced, pro-AUKUS article from the AFR, but it's paywalled. If anyone with access wants to post it up though...

The AUKUS debate needs clear reasoning, not hot air

There is a vacuum in public awareness of our strategic circumstances. In these times of no war and no peace, that needs to be fixed.

www.afr.com

 

[Rickshaw]

This is a well balanced 'explainer' article from the AFR:

How Australia would actually use submarines in a war (in four maps)

If a conflict in the Asia-Pacific region broke out, what would it look like, and what roles could conventional and nuclear submarines play?

www.afr.com

Pay walled. Can you please post the article?

 

[Rickshaw]

This appears to be an anything but balanced, pro-AUKUS article from the AFR, but it's paywalled. If anyone with access wants to post it up though...

The AUKUS debate needs clear reasoning, not hot air

There is a vacuum in public awareness of our strategic circumstances. In these times of no war and no peace, that needs to be fixed.

www.afr.com

Pay walled. Can you please post the article?

 

[jeffb]

This appears to be an anything but balanced, pro-AUKUS article from the AFR, but it's paywalled. If anyone with access wants to post it up though...

The AUKUS debate needs clear reasoning, not hot air

There is a vacuum in public awareness of our strategic circumstances. In these times of no war and no peace, that needs to be fixed.

www.afr.com

Pay walled. Can you please post the article?

Not a subscriber sorry.

 

[jeffb]

This is a well balanced 'explainer' article from the AFR:

How Australia would actually use submarines in a war (in four maps)

If a conflict in the Asia-Pacific region broke out, what would it look like, and what roles could conventional and nuclear submarines play?

www.afr.com

Pay walled. Can you please post the article?

That's weird, I could access the whole thing from home, but I'm out now and I'm hitting a paywall as well, possibly I've hit a 'free articles' limit. I'll see if I can post it up when I get back home.

Edit: I can still get it at home but posting the whole article skates very close to the "Don't reprint whole book magazine articles" prohibition. Technically it's from the online version of a newspaper and I'm not sure if that makes it ok or not. If the mods are ok with it I'll post it up but in the meantime I'll wait for a ruling.

 

[Jemiba]

Technically it's from the online version of a newspaper and I'm not sure if that makes it ok or not. If the mods are ok with it I'll post it up but in the meantime I'll wait for a ruling.

I think, you're right, posting a full article, that comes from a paywalled site, would breach copy right, but posting a summary should be ok.

 

[GTX]

your reply to me pointing out that Marles's statement that the subs were not contingent on Australian support of a US led intervention over Taiwan were misleading at best, was both rude and dismissive.

Errr...my posting of this (at Reply#1651) did not reference you at all. It was also simply an article that included the current Defence Minister Richard Marles's comments on the matter - something I believe is highly relevant. If you are saying that it was misleading then your problem is with him (or the journalist, Georgia Hitch) not me.

As for considering the same rude and dismissive, I cannot help you there if you can't handle someone posting information that counters your position.

 

[GTX]

Opinion piece: It’s time to return fire against AUKUS naysayers

Paywalled. Please print the text.

Sorry about that. I won't print the entire text but here are the key points:

• Opinion article written by Peter Jennings
• Addresses negative comments related to AUKUS and the SSNs and in particular those within the Labour Party attacking it (e.g. Paul Keating) and in particular those making "... sweeping but generally poorly informed dismissals of submarine technology, Australian defence policy, the reliability of the US and the supposed invincibility of China..."
• Asserts that the Govt needs to "... make the detailed case for AUKUS, explaining the military technology, the value of the alliance and why we need to deter China’s aggression..." - an example being how "...Marles has already made a parliamentary statement on how Australia will keep sovereign control of submarine operations. That helped Marles counter silly arguments that US nuclear engineers will veto Australian commanding officers..."
• Suggests the Govt consider a "... six-monthly prime ministerial statement that enables members and senators to put their views on the public record..."
• Argues the Govt needs to counter 4 particular 'red herrings' being put forward - the article goes into more depth re the arguments against each but I haven't put them here (if people want more please PM me):
  • "...that future technology will make the oceans transparent, rendering submarines obsolescent..."
  • "...that we simply will not be able crew nuclear-powered boats..."
  • "...that operating two different nuclear-powered submarines at the same time – when the Virginia-class subs hand over to the AUKUS design – crosses a threshold of complexity for Australia that will be just too difficult to manage...."
  • "...that the project represents a stealthy shift from a “defence of Australia” strategy to a “forward defence” concept ... meaning ... that some day we may have to fight in a battle a long way from Australia and as part of a US-led coalition...”.
    

 

[GTX]

INDOPACOM Chief promises greater AUKUS cooperation - Australian Defence Magazine

The head of US Indo-Pacific Command has said that efforts will be made to speed up the transfer of critical technology from the US to Australia under the second pillar of AUKUS.

www.australiandefence.com.au

Most relevant aspect to this thread:

Aquilino also field questions on the future rotational deployment of US Navy nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) to Western Australia which was announced last week as part of the broader roadmap to delivering an SSN capability to the RAN.

He did not provide more specifics about whether the future deployments will result in a net increase of US Navy SSNs in the Indo-Pacific or the duration of the deployments as the details are still being fleshed out.

However, he said that the focus will be “to move at the fastest pace possible to deliver the capability that Australia has identified is needed”.

Under the AUKUS submarine plans unveiled last week, the AUKUS partners will have a rotational presence of “up to four” US Navy and one Royal Navy SSNs at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia from 2027. This presence will be known as Submarine Rotational Force - West (SRF-West).

Defence says the deployments “will help Australia build the necessary operational capabilities and skills to be sovereign ready, so Australia can safely and securely own, operate, maintain and regulate a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines from the early 2030s”.

It adds that “SRF-West will accelerate our efforts to develop Australia's capability to safely and securely operate and sustain its future nuclear-powered submarines.”

 

[jeffb]

your reply to me pointing out that Marles's statement that the subs were not contingent on Australian support of a US led intervention over Taiwan were misleading at best, was both rude and dismissive.

Errr...my posting of this (at Reply#1651) did not reference you at all. It was also simply an article that included the current Defence Minister Richard Marles's comments on the matter - something I believe is highly relevant. If you are saying that it was misleading then your problem is with him (or the journalist, Georgia Hitch) not me.

As for considering the same rude and dismissive, I cannot help you there if you can't handle someone posting information that counters your position.

I was referring to your response at reply #1693, the response where you included a link to Hugh White's aspi talk re Australia's nuclear options.

 

[GTX]

I was referring to your response at reply #1693, the response where you included a link to Hugh White's aspi talk re Australia's nuclear options.

So the one that didn't mention Richard Marles's statement nor Taiwan ... right

 

[jeffb]

I was referring to your response at reply #1693, the response where you included a link to Hugh White's aspi talk re Australia's nuclear options.

So the one that didn't mention Richard Marles's statement nor Taiwan ... right

Support for potential Taiwan conflict not part of AUKUS submarine deal, defence minister says

Defence Minister Richard Marles says the federal government made no promises to the United States that Australia would support it in any future conflict over Taiwan in exchange for American nuclear submarines.

www.abc.net.au

Hugh White was the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper.

AUKUS commits Australia to fight China if America does, simple | Lowy Institute

Whatever the flag, Washington would not sell nuclear-powered boats unless it could count on them in war over Taiwan.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Well you'd deleted the link to Marles's claims and Taiwan in your reply. The reply that went on to imply that Hugh White was some sort of kook when in fact he seems an extremely reasonable, intelligent commentator who has considerable experience dealing directly with Australia's department of defence and the Americans, both at a high level.

Hugh White was the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper.

AUKUS commits Australia to fight China if America does, simple | Lowy Institute

Whatever the flag, Washington would not sell nuclear-powered boats unless it could count on them in war over Taiwan.

www.lowyinstitute.org

So what? It is just his opinion. He has not been involved with any Govt role since about 2000 too so just like former prime ministers expressing their opinions, it carries no weight in terms of actual Australian Govt policy.

BTW, I am kind of amused by the fact that you dug up Hugh White. Would I by default think that you also supported his thinking on Australia adopting nuclear weapons?

https://www.aspi.org.au/video/australia-and-nuclear-weapons-hugh-white

NOTE: I emphasise again that the AUKUS deal and the AUKUS-SSNs are not about Nuclear weapons.

 

[jeffb]

Sorry about that. I won't print the entire text but here are the key points:

• Opinion article written by Peter Jennings

Peter Jennings is a senior fellow of and formerly the director of ASPI, the government and defence industry funded think tank. Obviously there's a large conflict of interest at play.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1639406261967142913

View: https://twitter.com/bobjcarr/status/1639406261967142913?t=KWhM33wsjzC9406GwKBmJw&s=19

Argues the Govt needs to counter 4 particular 'red herrings' being put forward - the article goes into more depth re the arguments against each but I haven't put them here (if people want more please PM me):

• "...that future technology will make the oceans transparent, rendering submarines obsolescent..."
• "...that we simply will not be able crew nuclear-powered boats..."
• "...that operating two different nuclear-powered submarines at the same time – when the Virginia-class subs hand over to the AUKUS design – crosses a threshold of complexity for Australia that will be just too difficult to manage...."
• "...that the project represents a stealthy shift from a “defence of Australia” strategy to a “forward defence” concept ... meaning ... that some day we may have to fight in a battle a long way from Australia and as part of a US-led coalition...”.

The arguments as to why these issues should be considered red herrings are pretty central to the debate and would be well worth including here.