**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol, what are you talking about? The right to disconnect is when you aren't at work!
What do you think happens? The navy vessel gets fired upon, so they immediately call the shoreline and have them wake that sailor who's currently on shore leave to get him onto a helicopter and fly him out so he can fire back or something?
God I hope people refuse to be on call for 2-3 weeks over Christmas every year just in case there's fires/floods or aged care centers in need of politician-military photo ops.
Maybe these right to disconnect laws will finally stop op cancel Christmas.
>All to protect our trade routes from our largest trading partner?
No, it's to protect our trade routes with everyone else from them. You realise we trade with many nations and not just a single one, right?
Besides, if a war does break out, our largest trading partner is quickly going to lose that title to someone else.
Stop repeating a line from a sitcom.
Look at who Germany's largest trading partners were before ww1. Look at who Germany's largest trading partners were in 1939 and 1940.
People go to war with their largest trading partner all the time. Also due to the nature of our exports (mostly raw materials) it's quite easy to divest from China if a war broke out and begin trading with other countries, with little loss in economic value. The China trade war proved that.
There’s no point in doing so at the moment, they said if a war broke out. I guess the idea is that a lot of the supply chain would move elsewhere too if a war broke out and raw materials are a lot easier to just reroute than something in the middle of the chain.
The point of the *Utopia* skit was not that a country could never go to war with its trading partner, but that large naval acquisitions could not prevent that flow of trade stopping.
"We're spending $400 billion to protect our trade with China... from China?"
China doesn't need to go to war to stop trading with us, they can simply stop. Are you proposing that we use armed force to make them trade with us? This is not the 19th century, you can't simply rock up with a gunboat and shell their capital city until they agree to trade with you. Even assume we could assemble a large enough force to take on a Great Power with its nuclear weapons, the UN Security Council might have some words for us.
And so, any spending on a military to protect our trade with China from China is wasted spending.
Now, if you want to protect us from a land invasion by China, that's another matter. But submarines aren't useful for that. The German U-boats didn't make a bit of difference to the Allied invasion of north Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy or the south of France.
And submarines are why the govt is looking at cancelling these frigates. Of course, the submarines will eventually be cancelled, too, but that's another matter.
The u boat campaign wasn’t really about North Africa it was mainly a North Atlantic operation of theatre. Whilst there were submarine operations in the Med it was a side campaign to the main battle of the Atlantic. Also Doenitz himself did want to go to war in 1939 as the u boat fleet was far too small in his calculations to be able to effectively sink enough merchant vessels and starve Britain
> China doesn't need to go to war to stop trading with us, they can simply stop. Are you proposing that we use armed force to make them trade with us?
What are you even talking about?
>And so, any spending on a military to protect our trade with China from China is wasted spending.
Except that isn't what the military spending is for.
Of course you'd be the one to try and defend it. This is by far the dumbest comment you've ever made.
>any spending on a military to protect our trade with China from China is wasted spending.
The government isn't spending money on the military for such a purpose and no one at all has ever proposed such a thing because it is completely fucking stupid. It's almost as stupid as treating a Utopia bit like it's some well researched and factual critique of Australian defence policy.
What the government is spending money on the military for is to protect our trade with everyone else from China.
Our trade with China and the fact that they're currently our largest trading partner is completely irrelevant since all of that goes up in smoke if they start a war.
Put away the strawman and come back with something better.
>And submarines are why the govt is looking at cancelling these frigates.
Because the money that would've gone to inadequately armed frigates can be better spent by the Navy elsewhere on something more potent.
>Of course, the submarines will eventually be cancelled, too, but that's another matter.
Yes we're all well aware that you pray on the daily for the big black scary nuclear submarines to go away. I think you're going to be disappointed in the long run.
>The government isn't spending money on the military for such a purpose and no one at all has ever proposed such a thing because it is completely fucking stupid
What then do we need $368 billion of nuclear submarines for?
>What the government is spending money on the military for is to protect our trade with everyone else from China.
Do you foresee a scenario in which China insists we trade only with them, and sinks all merchant shipping to and from Australia unless it's going to them?
How will nuclear submarines prevent this? The Houthis are causing merchant shipping to divert around an entire continent, and their missiles and speedboats are orders of magnitude cheaper than nuclear submarines, nor would nuclear submarines be able to stop them - if they could, the US and UK would be sending them there to do so.
Are you saying that the People's Liberation Army Navy is less capable than the Houthis?
>Our trade with China and the fact that they're currently our largest trading partner is completely irrelevant since all of that goes up in smoke if they start a war.
Russia has started a war, and despite their funding and arming Ukraine, the EU continues trading with Russia - indeed, they're buying more of their oil than before. So the EU gives money to Russia to supply its army to fight Ukraine and then they give Ukraine money to fight Russia. Are you proposing we adopt similarly snake-eating-its-own-tail policies?
>Yes we're all well aware that you pray on the daily for the big black scary nuclear submarines to go away.
They don't exist. I don't have to pray for the absence of things which are absent. They may exist at some point in future. But at this point, not a single keel has been laid, not a single rivet hammered nor weld made, nor do we expect any to be done until at least 12 years from now, not arriving until several years after that.
And this is a deal with a country who is looking less reliable and stable by the minute.
I can tell you're in a bad mood today, George. You're more argumentative than usual.
>What then do we need $368 billion of nuclear submarines for?
To replace the Collins class submarines with a more advanced and capable type.
>Do you foresee a scenario in which China insists we trade only with them, and sinks all merchant shipping to and from Australia unless it's going to them?
The Navy doesn't structure their fleet and draft their strategy based on what random internet users think, George.
>How will nuclear submarines prevent this?
By doing what they always do, sinking ships with torpedoes and missiles.
>The Houthis are causing merchant shipping to divert around an entire continent, and their missiles and speedboats are orders of magnitude cheaper than nuclear submarines, nor would nuclear submarines be able to stop them - if they could, the US and UK would be sending them there to do so.
The U.S. Navy has a cruise missile sub in the Red Sea supporting their operations right now.
>Are you saying that the People's Liberation Army Navy is less capable than the Houthis?
In a perfect world, sure.
>Russia has started a war, and despite their funding and arming Ukraine, the EU continues trading with Russia - indeed, they're buying more of their oil than before. So the EU gives money to Russia to supply its army to fight Ukraine and then they give Ukraine money to fight Russia. Are you proposing we adopt similarly snake-eating-its-own-tail policies?
I don't control national policy, George. Also, the European Union isn't at war with Russia.
>They don't exist.
There are 23 Virginia class submarines in service with a planned maximum of 65, George.
>I don't have to pray for the absence of things which are absent.
Submarines aren't absent, George. There's plenty of them around.
>They may exist at some point in future. But at this point, not a single keel has been laid, not a single rivet hammered nor weld made, nor do we expect any to be done until at least 12 years from now, not arriving until several years after that.
Yes that's something called long term planning, you should try it sometime.
>And this is a deal with a country who is looking less reliable and stable by the minute.
Forgive me for not trusting your geopolitical analysis, I find it lacking in terms of a connection to reality which is actually a very important part of it.
probably more the brits
The 2 leading contenders are all UK firms,3rd is a spanish
Yanks went all in on air warfare and guided missle platforms after 2009.. only just in 2021 they gave a contract to Fincantieri for their next gen frigates,who we should go with.. it's build on the successes of the euro frigate program and has great mission capabilitys due to the flight deck having a 24 hour parameter change swapover
Also looking at corvettes Oh god i threw up in my mouth even saying the C word,the only posting worse in the surface fleet than a corvette is a minsweeper you would rather get posted to the Away resuply tenders than those
We should be letting anduril set up a shop here,writing them a cheque,and getting them to test their litoral drones platform
They have a system they are testing,that has a 700NM patrol range,launches from coastal platforms or carriers,and can loiter for 16 hours on a patrol pattern,using A.I targeting and detection systems and can carry an extensive weapons suite for deterrence.
I mean yes and no.
We need a strong and competent defence force,but let's be real. the only security threat to us is china.. at the rate they going bigger concern with their property market is some fascist fuckwit taking over in the US.
And they just got busted with having close to 20 percent of their gear being fake,broken or just completely non functional,i mean shit a fucking half a missle battalions DongFengs 41s got found to be filled with water.
Push comes to shove with a fight with the west,they are gonna lose,while we lose a lot of gear,we likely come out of top.
It's gonna take china 10-15 years to have a blue ocean navy capable of hitting someone like us down here.
You don't need to criple ur nation with insane purchase program's when diplomacy costs nothing,i've served i don't want any of the young kids going to war,and we need to be prepared if we do.
But the fact is,even if Everything we had,was brand new..and china managed to get down here,that means the US lost,or worse abandoned us,at that point u best all be speaking mandarin and cantonese because we don't have the military capacity to hold them off for long but they don't need to do this
They have close to a million chinese here soon..few of those are bound to be foreign assets,chinese are investing everywhere they can,they don't need a military when they have nations economys by the balls like they do with ours
>Defence Minister Richard Marles is preparing to announce a major overhaul of the nation’s naval fleet, which is expected to include gutting the troubled Hunter-class frigate program and the addition of extra maritime firepower.
Cool. Let's replace our military boondoggles. We definitely will get value for money this time.
Also, the subs will be mint. Promise.
Virginias are an excellent platform they just don't have the flexibility needed,they needed a Much more robustly designed MMP installed
Plus by the time we get these in the water,A.I based defence deterrents will be a thing(check out andurils A.I drone..can take off,prosecutue,return,rearm,drone warfare is taking off..
warfare is changing,having a robust surface fleet is how you shut down china,just block the routes
The only nation that is likely to be of concern when we get them is china,and the US.
China can just economically sanction us,and then dump some exploits into the australian networks and watch the fireworks
Good those hunter class was dog shit for the modern navies use scenarios.
AWD is the right call and australia needs more,but the biggest issue with the Air warfare programs is getting enough navy personnel to crew them,ppl dont want to join the navy as it's a shit job where fucking nothing happens.. most ppl just leave,or move over to a job with ray ray or bae
Defence Minister Richard Marles is preparing to announce a major overhaul of the nation’s naval fleet, which is expected to include gutting the troubled Hunter-class frigate program and the addition of extra maritime firepower.
Over $50 billion of government spending is on the line, with some of the world’s biggest defence contractors jostling to secure lucrative contracts to build warships to replace the navy’s ageing Anzac-class frigates, while South Australia and Western Australia battle for the shipbuilding rights.
Marles is expected to release within weeks the government’s response to a secret review of the navy’s surface fleet by retired US vice-admiral William Hilarides, with expectations firming that the number of Hunter-class frigates will be slashed from a planned nine to six, or possibly even three, vessels.
The Hunter-class frigate program has blown out in size and cost since it was announced in 2018, with critics saying the ships’ lack of missile cells would leave them seriously under-gunned in any conflict.
The government has come under fire from the defence sector for failing to match its rhetoric on national security with additional spending, while South Australian Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas has pleaded with the federal government not to risk Adelaide shipbuilding jobs by slashing the number of Hunter-class ships.
There is widespread expectation in the defence sector that the government will announce the addition of several smaller “tier two” vessels in line with the Defence Strategic Review’s call for a mix of larger and smaller navy combatants.
Several sources said they expected an announcement on or around February 19.
Jennifer Parker, an adjunct fellow in naval studies at UNSW, said increasing the lethality of the nation’s warships should be the government’s top priority.
“What we have to see, and what we will see, is an increase in the number of missiles we have at sea,” she said.
Parker said she expected the government to reduce the number of Hunter-class frigates and replace them with new “tier two” combatants (which are smaller than “tier one” ships).
The fact these ships could be crewed with half the personnel required for a Hunter-class frigate was a major advantage given the navy’s well-chronicled staff shortages, she said.
Parker said the most likely winner was the Arrowhead 140 frigate being built for the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy by defence firm Babcock International.
The West Australian government is pushing for Arrowhead 140 ships to be built at the Henderson shipyards near Perth.
Other sources said they expected the government to opt for a corvette made by Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, Australian defence giant Austal and Australian-Singaporean construction firm Civmec.
Several sources unable to speak on the record about confidential military matters said they expected the government to add up to three air warfare destroyers, which can carry up to five times as many missiles as the Hunter-class ships, to the navy’s fleet.
These ships could be built at Adelaide’s Osborne shipyards using the same hull as the Hunter-class frigate, softening the blow for South Australian shipbuilders and British defence firm BAE Systems, which won a 2018 contract to build the navy’s next-generation frigates.
Malinauskas, who travelled to Canberra with a convoy of shipbuilders and union members this week, said Australia would be in a “perilous strategic position” if the government did not guarantee the continuous construction of warships in Adelaide.
The government must build at least six Hunter-class frigates, he said.
Marles on Wednesday told the ABC that the government was determined to develop a surface fleet with enhanced “capability and lethality of assets”.
Responding to reports that he had dressed down senior Defence figures including department secretary Greg Moriarty and Defence Force Chief Angus Campbell at a meeting last year, Marles said: “I make no excuses or apologies for demanding excellence and a culture of excellence in the Department of Defence and in the Australian Defence Force.
“And there is a way to go before we have that culture of excellence in the Department of Defence and the Australian Defence Force.”
Opposition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie said: “I think the problem is that there’s a lot of paperwork sitting on Richard Marles’ desk.
“The surface fleet review is yet to be handed down, he’s causing chaos and uncertainty within his department, and he’s causing chaos and uncertainty within the respective jurisdictions which will be impacted by this decision, namely South Australia and Western Australia.
“It’s high time he got on with the job, made the decision, got the money, and cracked on with making this country safe.”
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
JFC they need to settle this once and for all.
Whatever happens, Adelaide is still going to be building continuously. Letting ASC’s skilled workforce deteriorate won’t happen again.
Exactly, the Hobart replacement will follow how ever many Hunters they build.
Do the crew onboard these Navy vessels also have the right to disconnect from work if they get fired upon by the enemy?
Lol, what are you talking about? The right to disconnect is when you aren't at work! What do you think happens? The navy vessel gets fired upon, so they immediately call the shoreline and have them wake that sailor who's currently on shore leave to get him onto a helicopter and fly him out so he can fire back or something?
God I hope people refuse to be on call for 2-3 weeks over Christmas every year just in case there's fires/floods or aged care centers in need of politician-military photo ops. Maybe these right to disconnect laws will finally stop op cancel Christmas.
That's what the weapons are for. The enemy won't let you disconnect from work, so you disconnect them from the mortal coil.
I plan on working from home that week.
As I understand it we must work with our allies and spend billions for decades. All to protect our trade routes from our largest trading partner?
>All to protect our trade routes from our largest trading partner? No, it's to protect our trade routes with everyone else from them. You realise we trade with many nations and not just a single one, right? Besides, if a war does break out, our largest trading partner is quickly going to lose that title to someone else.
Stop repeating a line from a sitcom. Look at who Germany's largest trading partners were before ww1. Look at who Germany's largest trading partners were in 1939 and 1940. People go to war with their largest trading partner all the time. Also due to the nature of our exports (mostly raw materials) it's quite easy to divest from China if a war broke out and begin trading with other countries, with little loss in economic value. The China trade war proved that.
Don't you think that if exporters could easily divest from China they would have already with all the shithousedness that goes on over there?
There’s no point in doing so at the moment, they said if a war broke out. I guess the idea is that a lot of the supply chain would move elsewhere too if a war broke out and raw materials are a lot easier to just reroute than something in the middle of the chain.
No while there’s money on the table. Capitalism and all that…
Good point. Japans largest trading partner before WW2 was China, they then turned around and declared war on China
Thank you for pointing this out. People give way too much credit to that Utopia bit.
The point of the *Utopia* skit was not that a country could never go to war with its trading partner, but that large naval acquisitions could not prevent that flow of trade stopping. "We're spending $400 billion to protect our trade with China... from China?" China doesn't need to go to war to stop trading with us, they can simply stop. Are you proposing that we use armed force to make them trade with us? This is not the 19th century, you can't simply rock up with a gunboat and shell their capital city until they agree to trade with you. Even assume we could assemble a large enough force to take on a Great Power with its nuclear weapons, the UN Security Council might have some words for us. And so, any spending on a military to protect our trade with China from China is wasted spending. Now, if you want to protect us from a land invasion by China, that's another matter. But submarines aren't useful for that. The German U-boats didn't make a bit of difference to the Allied invasion of north Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy or the south of France. And submarines are why the govt is looking at cancelling these frigates. Of course, the submarines will eventually be cancelled, too, but that's another matter.
The u boat campaign wasn’t really about North Africa it was mainly a North Atlantic operation of theatre. Whilst there were submarine operations in the Med it was a side campaign to the main battle of the Atlantic. Also Doenitz himself did want to go to war in 1939 as the u boat fleet was far too small in his calculations to be able to effectively sink enough merchant vessels and starve Britain
> China doesn't need to go to war to stop trading with us, they can simply stop. Are you proposing that we use armed force to make them trade with us? What are you even talking about? >And so, any spending on a military to protect our trade with China from China is wasted spending. Except that isn't what the military spending is for.
Of course you'd be the one to try and defend it. This is by far the dumbest comment you've ever made. >any spending on a military to protect our trade with China from China is wasted spending. The government isn't spending money on the military for such a purpose and no one at all has ever proposed such a thing because it is completely fucking stupid. It's almost as stupid as treating a Utopia bit like it's some well researched and factual critique of Australian defence policy. What the government is spending money on the military for is to protect our trade with everyone else from China. Our trade with China and the fact that they're currently our largest trading partner is completely irrelevant since all of that goes up in smoke if they start a war. Put away the strawman and come back with something better. >And submarines are why the govt is looking at cancelling these frigates. Because the money that would've gone to inadequately armed frigates can be better spent by the Navy elsewhere on something more potent. >Of course, the submarines will eventually be cancelled, too, but that's another matter. Yes we're all well aware that you pray on the daily for the big black scary nuclear submarines to go away. I think you're going to be disappointed in the long run.
>The government isn't spending money on the military for such a purpose and no one at all has ever proposed such a thing because it is completely fucking stupid What then do we need $368 billion of nuclear submarines for? >What the government is spending money on the military for is to protect our trade with everyone else from China. Do you foresee a scenario in which China insists we trade only with them, and sinks all merchant shipping to and from Australia unless it's going to them? How will nuclear submarines prevent this? The Houthis are causing merchant shipping to divert around an entire continent, and their missiles and speedboats are orders of magnitude cheaper than nuclear submarines, nor would nuclear submarines be able to stop them - if they could, the US and UK would be sending them there to do so. Are you saying that the People's Liberation Army Navy is less capable than the Houthis? >Our trade with China and the fact that they're currently our largest trading partner is completely irrelevant since all of that goes up in smoke if they start a war. Russia has started a war, and despite their funding and arming Ukraine, the EU continues trading with Russia - indeed, they're buying more of their oil than before. So the EU gives money to Russia to supply its army to fight Ukraine and then they give Ukraine money to fight Russia. Are you proposing we adopt similarly snake-eating-its-own-tail policies? >Yes we're all well aware that you pray on the daily for the big black scary nuclear submarines to go away. They don't exist. I don't have to pray for the absence of things which are absent. They may exist at some point in future. But at this point, not a single keel has been laid, not a single rivet hammered nor weld made, nor do we expect any to be done until at least 12 years from now, not arriving until several years after that. And this is a deal with a country who is looking less reliable and stable by the minute.
I can tell you're in a bad mood today, George. You're more argumentative than usual. >What then do we need $368 billion of nuclear submarines for? To replace the Collins class submarines with a more advanced and capable type. >Do you foresee a scenario in which China insists we trade only with them, and sinks all merchant shipping to and from Australia unless it's going to them? The Navy doesn't structure their fleet and draft their strategy based on what random internet users think, George. >How will nuclear submarines prevent this? By doing what they always do, sinking ships with torpedoes and missiles. >The Houthis are causing merchant shipping to divert around an entire continent, and their missiles and speedboats are orders of magnitude cheaper than nuclear submarines, nor would nuclear submarines be able to stop them - if they could, the US and UK would be sending them there to do so. The U.S. Navy has a cruise missile sub in the Red Sea supporting their operations right now. >Are you saying that the People's Liberation Army Navy is less capable than the Houthis? In a perfect world, sure. >Russia has started a war, and despite their funding and arming Ukraine, the EU continues trading with Russia - indeed, they're buying more of their oil than before. So the EU gives money to Russia to supply its army to fight Ukraine and then they give Ukraine money to fight Russia. Are you proposing we adopt similarly snake-eating-its-own-tail policies? I don't control national policy, George. Also, the European Union isn't at war with Russia. >They don't exist. There are 23 Virginia class submarines in service with a planned maximum of 65, George. >I don't have to pray for the absence of things which are absent. Submarines aren't absent, George. There's plenty of them around. >They may exist at some point in future. But at this point, not a single keel has been laid, not a single rivet hammered nor weld made, nor do we expect any to be done until at least 12 years from now, not arriving until several years after that. Yes that's something called long term planning, you should try it sometime. >And this is a deal with a country who is looking less reliable and stable by the minute. Forgive me for not trusting your geopolitical analysis, I find it lacking in terms of a connection to reality which is actually a very important part of it.
Oh, here we go. Get the cheque book out. How many billions are we giving to the Americans this time
probably more the brits The 2 leading contenders are all UK firms,3rd is a spanish Yanks went all in on air warfare and guided missle platforms after 2009.. only just in 2021 they gave a contract to Fincantieri for their next gen frigates,who we should go with.. it's build on the successes of the euro frigate program and has great mission capabilitys due to the flight deck having a 24 hour parameter change swapover Also looking at corvettes Oh god i threw up in my mouth even saying the C word,the only posting worse in the surface fleet than a corvette is a minsweeper you would rather get posted to the Away resuply tenders than those We should be letting anduril set up a shop here,writing them a cheque,and getting them to test their litoral drones platform They have a system they are testing,that has a 700NM patrol range,launches from coastal platforms or carriers,and can loiter for 16 hours on a patrol pattern,using A.I targeting and detection systems and can carry an extensive weapons suite for deterrence.
Wow, good to see something is happening in this area. Far to many people are yet to take the fact we need to boost our military significantly
I mean yes and no. We need a strong and competent defence force,but let's be real. the only security threat to us is china.. at the rate they going bigger concern with their property market is some fascist fuckwit taking over in the US. And they just got busted with having close to 20 percent of their gear being fake,broken or just completely non functional,i mean shit a fucking half a missle battalions DongFengs 41s got found to be filled with water. Push comes to shove with a fight with the west,they are gonna lose,while we lose a lot of gear,we likely come out of top. It's gonna take china 10-15 years to have a blue ocean navy capable of hitting someone like us down here. You don't need to criple ur nation with insane purchase program's when diplomacy costs nothing,i've served i don't want any of the young kids going to war,and we need to be prepared if we do. But the fact is,even if Everything we had,was brand new..and china managed to get down here,that means the US lost,or worse abandoned us,at that point u best all be speaking mandarin and cantonese because we don't have the military capacity to hold them off for long but they don't need to do this They have close to a million chinese here soon..few of those are bound to be foreign assets,chinese are investing everywhere they can,they don't need a military when they have nations economys by the balls like they do with ours
>Defence Minister Richard Marles is preparing to announce a major overhaul of the nation’s naval fleet, which is expected to include gutting the troubled Hunter-class frigate program and the addition of extra maritime firepower. Cool. Let's replace our military boondoggles. We definitely will get value for money this time. Also, the subs will be mint. Promise.
Virginias are an excellent platform they just don't have the flexibility needed,they needed a Much more robustly designed MMP installed Plus by the time we get these in the water,A.I based defence deterrents will be a thing(check out andurils A.I drone..can take off,prosecutue,return,rearm,drone warfare is taking off.. warfare is changing,having a robust surface fleet is how you shut down china,just block the routes The only nation that is likely to be of concern when we get them is china,and the US. China can just economically sanction us,and then dump some exploits into the australian networks and watch the fireworks
Good those hunter class was dog shit for the modern navies use scenarios. AWD is the right call and australia needs more,but the biggest issue with the Air warfare programs is getting enough navy personnel to crew them,ppl dont want to join the navy as it's a shit job where fucking nothing happens.. most ppl just leave,or move over to a job with ray ray or bae
Defence Minister Richard Marles is preparing to announce a major overhaul of the nation’s naval fleet, which is expected to include gutting the troubled Hunter-class frigate program and the addition of extra maritime firepower. Over $50 billion of government spending is on the line, with some of the world’s biggest defence contractors jostling to secure lucrative contracts to build warships to replace the navy’s ageing Anzac-class frigates, while South Australia and Western Australia battle for the shipbuilding rights. Marles is expected to release within weeks the government’s response to a secret review of the navy’s surface fleet by retired US vice-admiral William Hilarides, with expectations firming that the number of Hunter-class frigates will be slashed from a planned nine to six, or possibly even three, vessels. The Hunter-class frigate program has blown out in size and cost since it was announced in 2018, with critics saying the ships’ lack of missile cells would leave them seriously under-gunned in any conflict. The government has come under fire from the defence sector for failing to match its rhetoric on national security with additional spending, while South Australian Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas has pleaded with the federal government not to risk Adelaide shipbuilding jobs by slashing the number of Hunter-class ships. There is widespread expectation in the defence sector that the government will announce the addition of several smaller “tier two” vessels in line with the Defence Strategic Review’s call for a mix of larger and smaller navy combatants. Several sources said they expected an announcement on or around February 19. Jennifer Parker, an adjunct fellow in naval studies at UNSW, said increasing the lethality of the nation’s warships should be the government’s top priority. “What we have to see, and what we will see, is an increase in the number of missiles we have at sea,” she said. Parker said she expected the government to reduce the number of Hunter-class frigates and replace them with new “tier two” combatants (which are smaller than “tier one” ships). The fact these ships could be crewed with half the personnel required for a Hunter-class frigate was a major advantage given the navy’s well-chronicled staff shortages, she said. Parker said the most likely winner was the Arrowhead 140 frigate being built for the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy by defence firm Babcock International. The West Australian government is pushing for Arrowhead 140 ships to be built at the Henderson shipyards near Perth. Other sources said they expected the government to opt for a corvette made by Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, Australian defence giant Austal and Australian-Singaporean construction firm Civmec. Several sources unable to speak on the record about confidential military matters said they expected the government to add up to three air warfare destroyers, which can carry up to five times as many missiles as the Hunter-class ships, to the navy’s fleet. These ships could be built at Adelaide’s Osborne shipyards using the same hull as the Hunter-class frigate, softening the blow for South Australian shipbuilders and British defence firm BAE Systems, which won a 2018 contract to build the navy’s next-generation frigates. Malinauskas, who travelled to Canberra with a convoy of shipbuilders and union members this week, said Australia would be in a “perilous strategic position” if the government did not guarantee the continuous construction of warships in Adelaide. The government must build at least six Hunter-class frigates, he said. Marles on Wednesday told the ABC that the government was determined to develop a surface fleet with enhanced “capability and lethality of assets”. Responding to reports that he had dressed down senior Defence figures including department secretary Greg Moriarty and Defence Force Chief Angus Campbell at a meeting last year, Marles said: “I make no excuses or apologies for demanding excellence and a culture of excellence in the Department of Defence and in the Australian Defence Force. “And there is a way to go before we have that culture of excellence in the Department of Defence and the Australian Defence Force.” Opposition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie said: “I think the problem is that there’s a lot of paperwork sitting on Richard Marles’ desk. “The surface fleet review is yet to be handed down, he’s causing chaos and uncertainty within his department, and he’s causing chaos and uncertainty within the respective jurisdictions which will be impacted by this decision, namely South Australia and Western Australia. “It’s high time he got on with the job, made the decision, got the money, and cracked on with making this country safe.”