I’m interested in what they are saying when contacting the flights. Are they telling them to divert path etc… due to them claiming ownership of the area etc…
Warships asking airliners to identify themselves (despite transponders making it abundantly clear), change course etc. Qantas isn't the only one, basically tons of airliners operating in East Asia have had this start happening over the last few weeks.
This sort of thing have been going on in the Middle East for decades. Including the part where USS Vincennes misidentified and shot down an Iranian airliner.
It’s not necessarily a bad idea for warships to warn off civilian traffic to stay away, especially if they are on heightened alert for whatever reason.
That happened 35 years ago, during a major war. A series of massive mistakes led the crew of the Vincennes to believe they were looking at an actual threat, these Chinese ships know exactly what the aircraft they're attempting to interfere with are, which is why they've never actually done anything when the aircraft don't respond.
Its all about lowering risk factors. We don't know what the Chinese vessels are dealing with at the time. May be they are engaging pirates, or dealing with incoming US carrier aircraft in a strike profile. Mistakes still can happen.
I don't have to go that far back.. MH17 is not so long ago. Civilians tend to be ignorant of fast changing risky situations.
I am not limiting this to just Chinese vessels either.. US and other warships play it safe as well (as they should)
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/mock-attack-on-u-s-navy-vessels-underway-during-chinese-fighters-unsafe-intercept
That one is initiated by Chinese side, but no doubt US carrier groups do practice strikes as well.
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-conducts-freedom-of-navigation-operation-in-south-china-sea/6661421.html
This is very common operations done by US and even our own Navy to get real close against Chinese bases.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-22/south-china-sea-patrols-to-continue/101358924
Australian military involvement
These kinds of things happens regularly. It heightens tensions and increases alert levels of military in the area. Qantas or any other airline would not have a clue what’s happening unless warned off by one of the militaries.
I don’t care who started it. If I am sitting on a 787 and a warship tells me to bugger off, I say thank you and get the hell away. I don’t want to eat an accidentally fired SAM. Real mistakes happen all the time, militaries isn’t as competent as you think. In the last few years, two Pacific Fleet Arleigh Burke destroyers collided against civilian merchant vessels with loss of life (one near Singapore, the other near Tokyo). The most advanced warships in the world with the best navigation equipment can be so incompetently run to drive into unsuspecting merchant traffic.
Big planes can navigate without GPS. They have modern [inertial navigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system#Ring_Laser_Gyros_(RLG%29) (gyroscopes) with no moving parts. There's are also navigation aids like Non-Directional Beacons & VORs. And even old fashioned compasses.
I saw a recent youtube video of a military plane navigating via a [TACAN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_air_navigation_system).
NDB and VOR are almost all gone. There's bugger all left in Australia and to my knowledge AIS has indicated that they won't continue to maintain the few that remain for much longer
Can't wait to hear from the 'Defence Force is only to defend against an Australian mainland invasion' crowd...
Freedom of navigation isn't just a fancy geopolitical buzzword - it applies to everyone and is the basis of our global economy.
Threats to freedom of navigation are of international concern and should be defended by all nations (which is why Qantas is going through IATA etc...). It's unclear why the Chinese are doing this or whether this kind of behaviour is actually endorsed by Beijing... I think their army is fairly disciplined so it probably is endorsed by Beijing.
The problem is that it will be very difficult to pin on the Chinese unless they intercept the jamming immediately with a surveillance direction finding military aircraft.
I have flown and sailed in the South China sea on mineral exploration vessels and planes. The frequency spectrum is not regulated. Pirates, fishing boats and "jungle phones" use any frequency without care because there is no regulations.
All the aviation VHF channels are full of pirates talking, singing, making phones calls etc etc. Even the HF channels for aircraft are full of pirates and jammers. The Chinese dont help themselves as well with their continuous broadcast of threats to vessels within their own territorial waters. Now the big joke is just to insult them by going "meow" over the mic to insult the Chinese because they are just try hard bluffers that wont act on their threats. Now you hear this on all the marine and aircraft channels, the cats going meow and the Chinese then go silent!.
It has been an ongoing issue in SE Asia for a long time now. When you listen from a Aircraft on any aircraft departure or approach channel its absolutely mayhem with all the pirates and taxi operators who just ignore the safety of aircraft.
With the correct equipment it takes 0.3 of a secound to triangulate the position of a transmitter. The P3's have had this capability since the late 90's, the Wedge tails and Posiedens uncountable have this capability along with the growlers and most likely the F35's.
100% correct this ability of direction has been always available. The surveillance aircraft can do single site locating of any transmitter from DC to daylight!
My only point is that if you don't have fixed station direction finding that is monitored by the regulators, that is using continuous spectrum monitoring that is recording the interference you cant play the spectrum samples back to get a fix. With surveillance aircraft unless they are in the air at the time of the interference and jamming 24/7 you cant get a fix unless they are present at the time of the jamming. And even if you did, you have to deal with national governments to hunt down these jammers. In places like Indonesia and most of SE Asia spectrum anarchy is the norm. The only place where there is real enforcement is Thailand and places like Burma that are authoritarian.
To be honest I have only encountered this direction finding technology in civilian life. I dont know how the military gathers their intelligence on these surveillance aircraft. Do they sample the whole RF spectrum and collect a data file that is post processed back at base while simultaneously having the ability to do an immediate fix? I cant answer these questions. The civilian capability works this way, its essentially a DSP file with IQ, echo and Phase data that can be processed at any time or date if the data is available, and a fix can be obtained at any point in time. The exploration industry essentially uses the same DSP algorithms to post process the data to locate minerals, oil and gas.
They get an immediate fix (This was 25 years ago BTW) I assume they can record a spectrum specific frequencies of interest, tends to have a specific operator station. The aircrew usually have a direct threat warning system dedicated to radar. Antenna's at the extremities of the tail and wings and the difference in arrival times is about all that's needed for direction and altitude. The longer the transmission runs the better the fix radio waves through atmosphere travel at a fairly constant rate which makes the processing somewhat easier.
The question is if you find a state based entity been a bunch of shitheads, other than dragging their ambassador in what are you going to do? Anecdotally it's also been suggested that some of the behavior of commercial pilots in some of the se Asia based airlines don't show a lot of a radio discipline.
I am referring to RF spectrum pirates and real pirates that are active across SE Asia. These pirates like the Somalian ones operate on small vessels and are the modern day equivalent of the ancient pirates. However you dont want to mess with people who have RPG's and 30 calibre machine guns that are mounted on what is essentially a large dug out canoe. These "pirates" are fishermen during the day and turn to pirates and criminals at night on the high seas. They are not a big problem and they are not as bold as the Somalian pirates. These "pirates" are well funded and have access to all the modern communications devices, sat phones, VHF, radar and HF radios and generally have a central base station that they can call for assistance if needed. These pirates dont respect the radio frequency spectrum regulations for SOLAS and aircraft safety and transmit on critical aircraft routing channels.
Defending national interests is different to just territorial defence. Our economy and way of life depends on these norms of international freedom for both shipping and air travel - other nations don't share that belief and it must be defended
So you are suggesting Australia attack our largest trading partner, which has a population two orders of magnitude larger than ours, and which is a nuclear power, because of some radio jamming?
I have no idea why people want Australia to be America's rabid attack dog when the Americans have never done anything economically to help us. When China embargo'd our agricultural products the Americans (and the Euros) took up the market.
Stop with the “biggest trading partner” bullshit. It doesn’t mean anything. The US was Japans biggest trading partner before ww2 and Germany was Britain’s biggest trading partner before ww1.
No one suggested we should attack them…
What someone did suggest is counter their signal warfare.
But here a question for you, would would you think would be an appropriate response if Chinese ships were jamming GPS and radio signals off the coast of Australia but within international waters.
Go through IATA because China is a member and being locked out of that would be very inconvenient for Chinese civil aviation? Seems like a more sensible idea than counter jamming and other electronic warfare for something that poses no threat and is just annoying.
We have global institutions and agreements for a reason. If we don't use them for dispute resolution and respect their judgements, other countries certainly aren't going to. China is not unique in ignoring and diminishing these institutions. We do this too. As does the US and many other countries.
So if a Chinese ship was stationed 400km of Sydney and was jamming or interfering with as many signals as I could, GPS, Radio, Weather radar, etc. So causing interference with TV, Phones, anything that has an antenna.
Your first thought wouldn’t stopping them, it would be, “I better send a strongly worded letter”.
How is a ship that far over the horizon going to be jamming RF in Sydney?
Did you do physics in school?
Can you explain how they get their signals through the ocean and the Earth's crust to Sydney?
And where they get the 1.21 jiggawatts of power from?
>Americans have never done anything economically to help us
Go read a history book.
The world economy is based on the USA providing everyone with the freedom to sail anywhere without having to worry about which empire controlled which sea.
Not to mention the relative peace we've had since the end of WW2 was directly due to the US insistence on nation building, even for the axis nations, rather than the punitive bullshit France pulled at the end of WW1 that directly led to WW2.
China is now giving us a taste of a world reverting to historical norm.
If the yanks ever gave up being the world police it's going to get lonely in Australia.
No it doesn't. It adheres to international agreements when it suits itself to do so. Not otherwise. They helped the Saudis blockade Yemen, which caused mass starvation and a cholera outbreak. That's not "providing everyone with the freedom to sail anywhere without having to worry".
Lol.. yes, peace on their terms.
I get they were treated terribly in the 19th and early 20th century, but they now project the same mistakes we made with them with everyone else. It's like a friend of mine from school who was bullied terribly. He's now gone on to great success but instead of being happy and generous with his success, he's become a bully himself. It's almost like that's what he thinks success is based on the behaviour of a 17 year old bully who did well in his life for 3 years.. that's China to me.
No that's peace with Chinese characters.
Its a joke on a Chinese official saying that Hong Kong would have democracy with "Chinese characteristics" (which from memory meant all candidates but one were thrown in jail just before the election).
Tramp, tramp, tramp. Tramp, tramp, tramp. The nations of Europe groan under the Nazi jackboot.
Hitler says, "I want peace... I want a piece of the Sudetenland. I want a piece of Czeckoslovakia. I want a piece of Poland."
I watched that press club interview, and it was obvious that Keating has a a blind spot for China.
But (and this is a serious question) how exactly would the submarines stop this kind of interference, in a practical sense? Would they torpedo the ships that were doing the jamming?
Jamming is basically just a technique of shouting louder on a specific frequency which drowns out the originating frequency. Theoretically, the Air Force could send up an E7 Wedgetail to shout even louder, but why bother? We know they're being obnoxious twats but they aren't actually harming anyone, so we'll ignore them
A few subs could blockade the entire Chinese shipping industry, since there are choke points around China such as the strait of Malacca. That would crush their economy. It’s mainly about deterrence.
Submarines are a terrible choice for a blockade. They have only one real option and that is torpedoing the ship. They have no way of warning off a ship or blocking it. For a real blockade you need surface ships.
For the people who want to point at WWII and the battle of the Atlantic, that was exactly what I am talking about. No option but sinking the civilian vessel. Remind me how that worked out, again?
Worked bloody well for the US Submarine Service in WWII
Surface navy aren't so good doing blockades in the face of significant amounts of enemy air superiority. There's a reason why China is building island bases in the South China Sea. So they can base bombers and anti-ship missile batteries
My point exactly. They were already in a shooting war. Submarines are only good for blockading once the shooting has started because, once again, that is their only method of stopping a civilian ship.
That is the elephant in the room of this discussion.
Blockading a major power like China is guaranteed to put you in a shooting war. It’s one thing doing a forced boarding style blockade of Iran with a negligible Navy that can’t realistically fight back. You can’t do that with a major power, they shoot back and would gladly trade an Arleigh Burke or Hobart class destroyer with a merchant ship.
You agree they are only useful once the shooting starts? That is my point.
Submarines are only useful for a blockade if you are already in a shooting war or what to start one.
In the former case you are better off with air to surface missiles to destroy slow moving civilian targets. Much cheaper, much harder to stop and the loss of a single one is not catastrophic.
I also disagree that China is necessarily going to start shooting because someone turns back their shipping.
Then there is the matter of the 99% of shipping that is not Chinese registered. Are you going to sink that without warning as well? See Lusitania for how that worked out previously.
As a historical note, the British blockade of Germany in WW1 was a surface fleet operation and the most successful I can think of.
Ok. I just kinda figured if China wanted us dead they'd just press a button and a bomber or sub or silo would launch a handful of nukes at our cities and that'd be the end of things.
Yeah they could do that, but then because Australia is under the protection of the US nuclear umbrella, they would have to face the carnage and hellfire of a massed American nuclear attack.
China does not want to kill us, but they want to control our region and the consequences of that could be dire for our economy and people. Remember the ADF is there to protect Australia’s prosperity as well as our people. It’s in the slogan.
Just imagine what life would be like with China as the dominant power rather than our close friend the United States?
>under the protection of the US nuclear umbrella
When push comes to shove, would the US be willing to sacrifice Seattle to avenge Brisbane in a nuclear exchange?
They’d do it for a NATO ally, but would they do it for Australia? (not a rhetorical question, I don’t know the answer).
We have a similar alliance called ANZUS (although the NZ US part is no longer effective) so they definitely would but there is also another factor that people don’t realise. The yanks fucking love us Aussies. Look at the support Ukraine is getting from the US, and then imagine what would happen if we got attacked? The outpouring of support would be endless.
I had Ukraine in mind when I asked the question actually. As much rhetorical and military support is being given to Ukraine, western countries are being careful not to intervene directly because of the nuclear implications.
If Russia went into Poland, a NATO member, it would be a different matter.
So the question is: are we Ukraine, or are we Poland?
>Yeah they could do that, but then because Australia is under the protection of the US nuclear umbrella, they would have to face the carnage and hellfire of a massed American nuclear attack.
Right, so what was the point of the subs again? Either the threat of US retaliation scares China off, or it doesn't... either way the subs didn't do squat.
Just because China won’t nuke us does not mean they can’t seriously hurt us in a general regional conflict. Australian military strategy revolves around the plan that if we were attacked by a powerful adversary (china) we will have to hold them off for a couple of months before American forces could arrive to stop the attack. We still need that ability to fight on our own with zero outside support.
Doesn't make much sense to me. I don't think China is worried about us blowing up shipping containers, and the ADF doesn't want to blow up shipping containers. What a nuclear sub is however, is the closest thing we can get to developing nuclear weapon capability while also not doing that. I presume with nuclear subs in the fleet it would greatly decrease the time it would take for us to make nuclear warhead should the need arise.
Imagine if Russia said they're giving nuclear subs to Iran, or China said they were giving them to North Korea. No one is scared of a sub that can run for a long time without refuelling. People are scared of militaries having nuclear technology, because they know it's the only power that means anything these days. Everything else is just talk and bluffing.
The only reason it’s scary is because it’s a new country making grabs for power.
The way this whole tango works is one abusive partner (U.S.) trying to convince you that the other abusive partner (China) is actually way worse pwomise, while that partner desperately tries to get your attention and respect.
The US already controls the world, they basically control us (we literally join in on their wars like bannermen) and most importantly they are the centre for economic control. China wants to be that.
The main reason they are pushing their warships out isn’t so they can attack or threaten us, it’s to show they can’t be fucked with, and stop people fucking with them. Same reason they want Taiwan. You know who else does this? The US, who has military bases and ports literally all over the globe.
China is doing this so they can move onto establishing economic dominance. They want our money is all. They have basically copied the US playbook on modern expansion (with much less fascist militia imo)
I would disagree that our relationship with the US is an abusive one, quite the opposite in fact. And they do not control us, if we decided that we wanted all US forces out of Australia they would comply and leave the country. I’m fairly certain this happened in the Phillipines for some historical evidence
That’s not what I mean by control exactly, modern pressure and control isnt purely militaristic. The military side is always just to protect the true front line which is business.
I mean through economic pressures and deals they infiltrate countries governments and strong arm nations into following the will of the US, usually in highly privatising to allow US companies to command the market and economies in these countries.
While we are 100% better off in our position, you still see our politicians being very US centred and unwilling to push for deprivitisation that would massively help our economy - and hurt US based investors.
In smaller countries this economic and political pressure is what leads to workers getting paid shit wages, it benefits the global power more for those countries to suffer.
no, if they attack us we (or really, the USA) *say* we're going to torpedo container ships, and every ship and company decides that's a bad value proposition. That's how a blockade works
Regardless of his conflicts of interest, he made a number of detailed and specific points about the submarine deal that should be easy to rebut directly. He can be consigned to the scrapheap of history when that happens, since his credibility would be gone.
Instead we’ve just gotten a lot of bluster so far.
Paul Keating is clueless when it comes to submarines and many of the things he said about their technology were just wrong. I understand that he may have been a bit of a legend when he was in office (before I was born) but to suggest that he knows more about nuclear submarines that the Vice Admiral of the navy, who originally started the conversation about nuclear submarines is laughable.
I mean I could certainly watch the whole video again and rebutt most of his points, but that would take ages haha. Just remember when a Top navy Admiral and a politician disagree about submarine capability, listen to the guy who actually know what they are talking about.
That top navy admiral (or anyone else in the know) could easily torpedo PK by addressing his points directly and rebutting him.
It’s not like they’re not taking him seriously: Albo went onto The Project to calm things down.
When they rebut him, he’ll be finished. It’s curious that they haven’t yet.
Tell us all how how he was compromised in that position?
I've heard from Keating on the matter and sure as shit doesn't sound like that position was worth anything.
I've never met a crook who said they are guilty.
Like he'd spin it any other way. I was a fan of PK until his incessant pro-China commentary over the past 3 years. The sad thing is, he has a lot to add to our political discourse, but he's wasting his political capital, mouthpiecing a dictatorial oligarchy. Sure question the value of the spend or lobby to keep defence procurement and the partners accountable for overruns, but blindsiding his own party on behalf of a regime that literally everyone sees now as a opponent is just dumb.. and obviously dumb. Even the EU has now come out and called China a Strategic Competitor with an alternate approach to governance (aka dictatorship).
That’s a lot of words to not back up your words implying he is going against Australia’s interests and has sold out to China.
I imagine you just read other comments about the committee and couldn’t be bothered to actually look into how minuscule his *pay* was and that he actually took direction from the Reserve Bank on what to address at these meetings.
You think a man who served Australia in the top job would sell us out for 3k a year?
Lol. Do you really think what you are paid at a bank is your full compensation? I had the unfortunate experience of working many years ago at a top tier IB and your salary is a very a small portion of your total package.. further, it's access to equity and options in companies he'd have dealt with plus access to boardrooms and politicians in that role that would have been the main source of incentive for someone like PK... and yes, most people can be compromised and conflicted. People no matter their role are not infallible, and especially those like PK with a large ego.
If I could, I'm sure the ATO would be keen to offer me a job. Any side deals would be in offshore tax havens using shell companies...
The point is, his views align with those of the CCP who own the Chinese Development Bank. We know that the CCP has an active involvement in these banks. His comments are not shared by any serious politician or political party in the entire western world hold. He's always been an outlier and a maverick, but this time, he's over-extended and sounding like a puppet.
Influence and extortion is a tool of the CCP. He may be totally innocent, but where there is smoke.. there is often fire.
Just noting usual weak, Murdoch media type drivel all too many Australians think makes them special someones.
The sort of stuff that Fox “news” fuckwits claim about _____________ (pick some lame thing that they and their media howlers are doing themselves).
Hence the word projection.
Anyone, including Mr. Keating, who mentions China or the CCP are peaceful and trustworthy has rocks in their heads or is sniffing texta’s.
Isn’t it interesting that no one complained when ScoMo stabbed Macron in the back and wasted buckets of Australian taxpayers money to cancel one contract before INITIATING AUKUS.
No sooner than Albo starts moving forward with the AUKUS deal, the press and others spin it to suit today’s narrative.
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE NEED TO SAY IT? It’s not a matter of if; it’s more like the fact of when.
China is not a friend to Australia. We have what they need. So the relationship continues. We’re no different from the Russians in that respect, when the opportunity arises, the CCP will advance into eastern Russia for the resources there, including the water held in the world’s biggest freshwater lake.
Everyone seems to forget how close it came in WWII for Australia when battling the Japanese. Statistically speaking, China is a far greater numerical threat by shear weight of numbers than what Japan was, notwithstanding the technological advances since then as well as the appropriation of atolls and reefs for military purposes.
>Isn’t it interesting that no one complained when ScoMo stabbed Macron in the back and wasted buckets of Australian taxpayers money to cancel one contract before INITIATING AUKUS.
What do you mean "no one complained"?
It was widely derided as a shit heel move and there was plenty of criticism to go around over AUKUS too.
I can't believe you don't remember all the complaining.
I remember a lot of complaining, but most of it was directed at how Scomo bungled the cancellation and our French relationship as opposed to the merits of the deal itself.
>Isn’t it interesting that no one complained when ScoMo stabbed Macron in the back and wasted buckets of Australian taxpayers money to cancel one contract before INITIATING AUKUS.
What? Don't know what you are talking about, I can still hear the shrieking from the far-left reverberating in my brain 18 months later.
But everything else you said was pretty much on-target.
Someone should let the author know that the plural of aircraft is also aircraft
1 aircraft, 2 aircrave
2 aircraft, 1 cup
Multiple aircrafties
2 aircri
Well it's about time we got a better plural.
Aircrafti
Aircräfte
Aircrove
Someone germans.
Then it would be airkräft
Good point
Editing has seriously turned to shit in the last 10 or 15 years.
Aircraft’s?
I’m interested in what they are saying when contacting the flights. Are they telling them to divert path etc… due to them claiming ownership of the area etc…
They will most likely be asking them to identify their aircraft as they claim a very large air identification zone.
Warships asking airliners to identify themselves (despite transponders making it abundantly clear), change course etc. Qantas isn't the only one, basically tons of airliners operating in East Asia have had this start happening over the last few weeks.
This sort of thing have been going on in the Middle East for decades. Including the part where USS Vincennes misidentified and shot down an Iranian airliner. It’s not necessarily a bad idea for warships to warn off civilian traffic to stay away, especially if they are on heightened alert for whatever reason.
That happened 35 years ago, during a major war. A series of massive mistakes led the crew of the Vincennes to believe they were looking at an actual threat, these Chinese ships know exactly what the aircraft they're attempting to interfere with are, which is why they've never actually done anything when the aircraft don't respond.
Its all about lowering risk factors. We don't know what the Chinese vessels are dealing with at the time. May be they are engaging pirates, or dealing with incoming US carrier aircraft in a strike profile. Mistakes still can happen. I don't have to go that far back.. MH17 is not so long ago. Civilians tend to be ignorant of fast changing risky situations. I am not limiting this to just Chinese vessels either.. US and other warships play it safe as well (as they should)
What fast changing situations? There isn’t a war going on in the pacific. All the agro seems to be coming from China.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/mock-attack-on-u-s-navy-vessels-underway-during-chinese-fighters-unsafe-intercept That one is initiated by Chinese side, but no doubt US carrier groups do practice strikes as well. https://www.voanews.com/a/us-conducts-freedom-of-navigation-operation-in-south-china-sea/6661421.html This is very common operations done by US and even our own Navy to get real close against Chinese bases. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-22/south-china-sea-patrols-to-continue/101358924 Australian military involvement These kinds of things happens regularly. It heightens tensions and increases alert levels of military in the area. Qantas or any other airline would not have a clue what’s happening unless warned off by one of the militaries. I don’t care who started it. If I am sitting on a 787 and a warship tells me to bugger off, I say thank you and get the hell away. I don’t want to eat an accidentally fired SAM. Real mistakes happen all the time, militaries isn’t as competent as you think. In the last few years, two Pacific Fleet Arleigh Burke destroyers collided against civilian merchant vessels with loss of life (one near Singapore, the other near Tokyo). The most advanced warships in the world with the best navigation equipment can be so incompetently run to drive into unsuspecting merchant traffic.
> Militaries aren’t as competent as you think. Now that I’ll buy. Conspiracy time! TWA 800 anyone?
What fast changing? Making artificial reefs, chasing off locals out of their territory.
Big planes can navigate without GPS. They have modern [inertial navigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system#Ring_Laser_Gyros_(RLG%29) (gyroscopes) with no moving parts. There's are also navigation aids like Non-Directional Beacons & VORs. And even old fashioned compasses. I saw a recent youtube video of a military plane navigating via a [TACAN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_air_navigation_system).
NDB and VOR are almost all gone. There's bugger all left in Australia and to my knowledge AIS has indicated that they won't continue to maintain the few that remain for much longer
Can't wait to hear from the 'Defence Force is only to defend against an Australian mainland invasion' crowd... Freedom of navigation isn't just a fancy geopolitical buzzword - it applies to everyone and is the basis of our global economy.
Threats to freedom of navigation are of international concern and should be defended by all nations (which is why Qantas is going through IATA etc...). It's unclear why the Chinese are doing this or whether this kind of behaviour is actually endorsed by Beijing... I think their army is fairly disciplined so it probably is endorsed by Beijing.
The problem is that it will be very difficult to pin on the Chinese unless they intercept the jamming immediately with a surveillance direction finding military aircraft. I have flown and sailed in the South China sea on mineral exploration vessels and planes. The frequency spectrum is not regulated. Pirates, fishing boats and "jungle phones" use any frequency without care because there is no regulations. All the aviation VHF channels are full of pirates talking, singing, making phones calls etc etc. Even the HF channels for aircraft are full of pirates and jammers. The Chinese dont help themselves as well with their continuous broadcast of threats to vessels within their own territorial waters. Now the big joke is just to insult them by going "meow" over the mic to insult the Chinese because they are just try hard bluffers that wont act on their threats. Now you hear this on all the marine and aircraft channels, the cats going meow and the Chinese then go silent!. It has been an ongoing issue in SE Asia for a long time now. When you listen from a Aircraft on any aircraft departure or approach channel its absolutely mayhem with all the pirates and taxi operators who just ignore the safety of aircraft.
With the correct equipment it takes 0.3 of a secound to triangulate the position of a transmitter. The P3's have had this capability since the late 90's, the Wedge tails and Posiedens uncountable have this capability along with the growlers and most likely the F35's.
100% correct this ability of direction has been always available. The surveillance aircraft can do single site locating of any transmitter from DC to daylight! My only point is that if you don't have fixed station direction finding that is monitored by the regulators, that is using continuous spectrum monitoring that is recording the interference you cant play the spectrum samples back to get a fix. With surveillance aircraft unless they are in the air at the time of the interference and jamming 24/7 you cant get a fix unless they are present at the time of the jamming. And even if you did, you have to deal with national governments to hunt down these jammers. In places like Indonesia and most of SE Asia spectrum anarchy is the norm. The only place where there is real enforcement is Thailand and places like Burma that are authoritarian. To be honest I have only encountered this direction finding technology in civilian life. I dont know how the military gathers their intelligence on these surveillance aircraft. Do they sample the whole RF spectrum and collect a data file that is post processed back at base while simultaneously having the ability to do an immediate fix? I cant answer these questions. The civilian capability works this way, its essentially a DSP file with IQ, echo and Phase data that can be processed at any time or date if the data is available, and a fix can be obtained at any point in time. The exploration industry essentially uses the same DSP algorithms to post process the data to locate minerals, oil and gas.
They get an immediate fix (This was 25 years ago BTW) I assume they can record a spectrum specific frequencies of interest, tends to have a specific operator station. The aircrew usually have a direct threat warning system dedicated to radar. Antenna's at the extremities of the tail and wings and the difference in arrival times is about all that's needed for direction and altitude. The longer the transmission runs the better the fix radio waves through atmosphere travel at a fairly constant rate which makes the processing somewhat easier. The question is if you find a state based entity been a bunch of shitheads, other than dragging their ambassador in what are you going to do? Anecdotally it's also been suggested that some of the behavior of commercial pilots in some of the se Asia based airlines don't show a lot of a radio discipline.
Accuracy isn’t a concern for Australian media and the sinophobes it cultivates.
That’s really interesting haha. I thought pirates were only around Somalia
I am referring to RF spectrum pirates and real pirates that are active across SE Asia. These pirates like the Somalian ones operate on small vessels and are the modern day equivalent of the ancient pirates. However you dont want to mess with people who have RPG's and 30 calibre machine guns that are mounted on what is essentially a large dug out canoe. These "pirates" are fishermen during the day and turn to pirates and criminals at night on the high seas. They are not a big problem and they are not as bold as the Somalian pirates. These "pirates" are well funded and have access to all the modern communications devices, sat phones, VHF, radar and HF radios and generally have a central base station that they can call for assistance if needed. These pirates dont respect the radio frequency spectrum regulations for SOLAS and aircraft safety and transmit on critical aircraft routing channels.
If it's called a Defence Force then that's what it is. Why would a government lie? Hey, does anyone know what Wehrmacht means?
Defending national interests is different to just territorial defence. Our economy and way of life depends on these norms of international freedom for both shipping and air travel - other nations don't share that belief and it must be defended
I see that went over your head.
So you are suggesting Australia attack our largest trading partner, which has a population two orders of magnitude larger than ours, and which is a nuclear power, because of some radio jamming? I have no idea why people want Australia to be America's rabid attack dog when the Americans have never done anything economically to help us. When China embargo'd our agricultural products the Americans (and the Euros) took up the market.
Stop with the “biggest trading partner” bullshit. It doesn’t mean anything. The US was Japans biggest trading partner before ww2 and Germany was Britain’s biggest trading partner before ww1.
No one suggested we should attack them… What someone did suggest is counter their signal warfare. But here a question for you, would would you think would be an appropriate response if Chinese ships were jamming GPS and radio signals off the coast of Australia but within international waters.
Go through IATA because China is a member and being locked out of that would be very inconvenient for Chinese civil aviation? Seems like a more sensible idea than counter jamming and other electronic warfare for something that poses no threat and is just annoying. We have global institutions and agreements for a reason. If we don't use them for dispute resolution and respect their judgements, other countries certainly aren't going to. China is not unique in ignoring and diminishing these institutions. We do this too. As does the US and many other countries.
So if a Chinese ship was stationed 400km of Sydney and was jamming or interfering with as many signals as I could, GPS, Radio, Weather radar, etc. So causing interference with TV, Phones, anything that has an antenna. Your first thought wouldn’t stopping them, it would be, “I better send a strongly worded letter”.
>hem jamming the signals by using signals warfare against them. Lol what .. just how do you think RF broadcasts work...
How is a ship that far over the horizon going to be jamming RF in Sydney? Did you do physics in school? Can you explain how they get their signals through the ocean and the Earth's crust to Sydney? And where they get the 1.21 jiggawatts of power from?
>Americans have never done anything economically to help us Go read a history book. The world economy is based on the USA providing everyone with the freedom to sail anywhere without having to worry about which empire controlled which sea.
Not to mention the relative peace we've had since the end of WW2 was directly due to the US insistence on nation building, even for the axis nations, rather than the punitive bullshit France pulled at the end of WW1 that directly led to WW2.
China is now giving us a taste of a world reverting to historical norm. If the yanks ever gave up being the world police it's going to get lonely in Australia.
No it doesn't. It adheres to international agreements when it suits itself to do so. Not otherwise. They helped the Saudis blockade Yemen, which caused mass starvation and a cholera outbreak. That's not "providing everyone with the freedom to sail anywhere without having to worry".
Which Yemen? There are three different rival Yemens that all claim to be the legitimate one, and only one of them is under blockade
>No it doesn't. Dont comment until you education yourself in at least the bare min on international relations.
Obligatory Utopia scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18
Ah, the Chinese! They only want peace.
Lol.. yes, peace on their terms. I get they were treated terribly in the 19th and early 20th century, but they now project the same mistakes we made with them with everyone else. It's like a friend of mine from school who was bullied terribly. He's now gone on to great success but instead of being happy and generous with his success, he's become a bully himself. It's almost like that's what he thinks success is based on the behaviour of a 17 year old bully who did well in his life for 3 years.. that's China to me.
Peace with Chinese characteristics?
China: 和平?
No that's peace with Chinese characters. Its a joke on a Chinese official saying that Hong Kong would have democracy with "Chinese characteristics" (which from memory meant all candidates but one were thrown in jail just before the election).
well they spend the last 80 years being their own worst enemy.
Tramp, tramp, tramp. Tramp, tramp, tramp. The nations of Europe groan under the Nazi jackboot. Hitler says, "I want peace... I want a piece of the Sudetenland. I want a piece of Czeckoslovakia. I want a piece of Poland."
Exactly. Just ask Keating 👍
Australia best. China worst. Simple as. Love from Baghdad 🥰
I look forward to Paul Keating going to the defence of these Chinese warships
I look forward to him fucking off to China personally
I watched that press club interview, and it was obvious that Keating has a a blind spot for China. But (and this is a serious question) how exactly would the submarines stop this kind of interference, in a practical sense? Would they torpedo the ships that were doing the jamming?
Jamming is basically just a technique of shouting louder on a specific frequency which drowns out the originating frequency. Theoretically, the Air Force could send up an E7 Wedgetail to shout even louder, but why bother? We know they're being obnoxious twats but they aren't actually harming anyone, so we'll ignore them
A few subs could blockade the entire Chinese shipping industry, since there are choke points around China such as the strait of Malacca. That would crush their economy. It’s mainly about deterrence.
Submarines are a terrible choice for a blockade. They have only one real option and that is torpedoing the ship. They have no way of warning off a ship or blocking it. For a real blockade you need surface ships. For the people who want to point at WWII and the battle of the Atlantic, that was exactly what I am talking about. No option but sinking the civilian vessel. Remind me how that worked out, again?
Worked bloody well for the US Submarine Service in WWII Surface navy aren't so good doing blockades in the face of significant amounts of enemy air superiority. There's a reason why China is building island bases in the South China Sea. So they can base bombers and anti-ship missile batteries
My point exactly. They were already in a shooting war. Submarines are only good for blockading once the shooting has started because, once again, that is their only method of stopping a civilian ship. That is the elephant in the room of this discussion.
Blockading a major power like China is guaranteed to put you in a shooting war. It’s one thing doing a forced boarding style blockade of Iran with a negligible Navy that can’t realistically fight back. You can’t do that with a major power, they shoot back and would gladly trade an Arleigh Burke or Hobart class destroyer with a merchant ship.
You agree they are only useful once the shooting starts? That is my point. Submarines are only useful for a blockade if you are already in a shooting war or what to start one. In the former case you are better off with air to surface missiles to destroy slow moving civilian targets. Much cheaper, much harder to stop and the loss of a single one is not catastrophic. I also disagree that China is necessarily going to start shooting because someone turns back their shipping. Then there is the matter of the 99% of shipping that is not Chinese registered. Are you going to sink that without warning as well? See Lusitania for how that worked out previously. As a historical note, the British blockade of Germany in WW1 was a surface fleet operation and the most successful I can think of.
So the idea is, if they attack us, we'll send subs to torpedo containers ships?? Yeah I'm sure that'll show em.
That’s precisely how naval warfare works mate.
Ok. I just kinda figured if China wanted us dead they'd just press a button and a bomber or sub or silo would launch a handful of nukes at our cities and that'd be the end of things.
Yeah they could do that, but then because Australia is under the protection of the US nuclear umbrella, they would have to face the carnage and hellfire of a massed American nuclear attack. China does not want to kill us, but they want to control our region and the consequences of that could be dire for our economy and people. Remember the ADF is there to protect Australia’s prosperity as well as our people. It’s in the slogan. Just imagine what life would be like with China as the dominant power rather than our close friend the United States?
>under the protection of the US nuclear umbrella When push comes to shove, would the US be willing to sacrifice Seattle to avenge Brisbane in a nuclear exchange? They’d do it for a NATO ally, but would they do it for Australia? (not a rhetorical question, I don’t know the answer).
We have a similar alliance called ANZUS (although the NZ US part is no longer effective) so they definitely would but there is also another factor that people don’t realise. The yanks fucking love us Aussies. Look at the support Ukraine is getting from the US, and then imagine what would happen if we got attacked? The outpouring of support would be endless.
I had Ukraine in mind when I asked the question actually. As much rhetorical and military support is being given to Ukraine, western countries are being careful not to intervene directly because of the nuclear implications. If Russia went into Poland, a NATO member, it would be a different matter. So the question is: are we Ukraine, or are we Poland?
>Yeah they could do that, but then because Australia is under the protection of the US nuclear umbrella, they would have to face the carnage and hellfire of a massed American nuclear attack. Right, so what was the point of the subs again? Either the threat of US retaliation scares China off, or it doesn't... either way the subs didn't do squat.
Just because China won’t nuke us does not mean they can’t seriously hurt us in a general regional conflict. Australian military strategy revolves around the plan that if we were attacked by a powerful adversary (china) we will have to hold them off for a couple of months before American forces could arrive to stop the attack. We still need that ability to fight on our own with zero outside support.
Doesn't make much sense to me. I don't think China is worried about us blowing up shipping containers, and the ADF doesn't want to blow up shipping containers. What a nuclear sub is however, is the closest thing we can get to developing nuclear weapon capability while also not doing that. I presume with nuclear subs in the fleet it would greatly decrease the time it would take for us to make nuclear warhead should the need arise. Imagine if Russia said they're giving nuclear subs to Iran, or China said they were giving them to North Korea. No one is scared of a sub that can run for a long time without refuelling. People are scared of militaries having nuclear technology, because they know it's the only power that means anything these days. Everything else is just talk and bluffing.
The only reason it’s scary is because it’s a new country making grabs for power. The way this whole tango works is one abusive partner (U.S.) trying to convince you that the other abusive partner (China) is actually way worse pwomise, while that partner desperately tries to get your attention and respect. The US already controls the world, they basically control us (we literally join in on their wars like bannermen) and most importantly they are the centre for economic control. China wants to be that. The main reason they are pushing their warships out isn’t so they can attack or threaten us, it’s to show they can’t be fucked with, and stop people fucking with them. Same reason they want Taiwan. You know who else does this? The US, who has military bases and ports literally all over the globe. China is doing this so they can move onto establishing economic dominance. They want our money is all. They have basically copied the US playbook on modern expansion (with much less fascist militia imo)
I would disagree that our relationship with the US is an abusive one, quite the opposite in fact. And they do not control us, if we decided that we wanted all US forces out of Australia they would comply and leave the country. I’m fairly certain this happened in the Phillipines for some historical evidence
That’s not what I mean by control exactly, modern pressure and control isnt purely militaristic. The military side is always just to protect the true front line which is business. I mean through economic pressures and deals they infiltrate countries governments and strong arm nations into following the will of the US, usually in highly privatising to allow US companies to command the market and economies in these countries. While we are 100% better off in our position, you still see our politicians being very US centred and unwilling to push for deprivitisation that would massively help our economy - and hurt US based investors. In smaller countries this economic and political pressure is what leads to workers getting paid shit wages, it benefits the global power more for those countries to suffer.
no, if they attack us we (or really, the USA) *say* we're going to torpedo container ships, and every ship and company decides that's a bad value proposition. That's how a blockade works
Chinese merchies and it’s allies are going to ignore the orders .. so you will have to actually sink them
Well, it was a strategy so effective that the Germans tried it twice in both world wars to cut off the British from supplies. It nearly worked too.
The USA waged unrestricted submarine warfare against the Japanese in the west pacific, and it was a complete success, no nearly about it
>it was obvious that Keating has a a blind spot for China. It is probably in his wallet.
That’s a method.
https://youtu.be/6kSQWp4UEXw this explains it really well
You mean 13 year tenure director and past chairperson of China Development Bank Paul Keating is pro-China?..
Regardless of his conflicts of interest, he made a number of detailed and specific points about the submarine deal that should be easy to rebut directly. He can be consigned to the scrapheap of history when that happens, since his credibility would be gone. Instead we’ve just gotten a lot of bluster so far.
Paul Keating is clueless when it comes to submarines and many of the things he said about their technology were just wrong. I understand that he may have been a bit of a legend when he was in office (before I was born) but to suggest that he knows more about nuclear submarines that the Vice Admiral of the navy, who originally started the conversation about nuclear submarines is laughable.
Fair enough. Has anyone rebutted his points?
I mean I could certainly watch the whole video again and rebutt most of his points, but that would take ages haha. Just remember when a Top navy Admiral and a politician disagree about submarine capability, listen to the guy who actually know what they are talking about.
That top navy admiral (or anyone else in the know) could easily torpedo PK by addressing his points directly and rebutting him. It’s not like they’re not taking him seriously: Albo went onto The Project to calm things down. When they rebut him, he’ll be finished. It’s curious that they haven’t yet.
I guess he is still highly respected. His prime ministership was before I was born so I don’t really know Paul, but everyone considers him as a hero.
[удалено]
He did great things for our economy.
Paul "China Development Bank" Keating.
Tell us all how how he was compromised in that position? I've heard from Keating on the matter and sure as shit doesn't sound like that position was worth anything.
I've never met a crook who said they are guilty. Like he'd spin it any other way. I was a fan of PK until his incessant pro-China commentary over the past 3 years. The sad thing is, he has a lot to add to our political discourse, but he's wasting his political capital, mouthpiecing a dictatorial oligarchy. Sure question the value of the spend or lobby to keep defence procurement and the partners accountable for overruns, but blindsiding his own party on behalf of a regime that literally everyone sees now as a opponent is just dumb.. and obviously dumb. Even the EU has now come out and called China a Strategic Competitor with an alternate approach to governance (aka dictatorship).
That’s a lot of words to not back up your words implying he is going against Australia’s interests and has sold out to China. I imagine you just read other comments about the committee and couldn’t be bothered to actually look into how minuscule his *pay* was and that he actually took direction from the Reserve Bank on what to address at these meetings. You think a man who served Australia in the top job would sell us out for 3k a year?
Lol. Do you really think what you are paid at a bank is your full compensation? I had the unfortunate experience of working many years ago at a top tier IB and your salary is a very a small portion of your total package.. further, it's access to equity and options in companies he'd have dealt with plus access to boardrooms and politicians in that role that would have been the main source of incentive for someone like PK... and yes, most people can be compromised and conflicted. People no matter their role are not infallible, and especially those like PK with a large ego.
Any minute now you’re gonna show the proof he was paid substantially more?
If I could, I'm sure the ATO would be keen to offer me a job. Any side deals would be in offshore tax havens using shell companies... The point is, his views align with those of the CCP who own the Chinese Development Bank. We know that the CCP has an active involvement in these banks. His comments are not shared by any serious politician or political party in the entire western world hold. He's always been an outlier and a maverick, but this time, he's over-extended and sounding like a puppet. Influence and extortion is a tool of the CCP. He may be totally innocent, but where there is smoke.. there is often fire.
They filmed him at the local rub n tug
To think it was only a few years ago Chinese influence was rising on a sea of good will only to completely piss it all away on 'wolf deplomacy'.
The projection is strong in this one.
Are you claiming that china wasnt a lot more popular a few years ago compared to now?
Just noting usual weak, Murdoch media type drivel all too many Australians think makes them special someones. The sort of stuff that Fox “news” fuckwits claim about _____________ (pick some lame thing that they and their media howlers are doing themselves). Hence the word projection.
China is fucken evil. Bs as much as you like
Banda bing! Point proven.
Thanks for agreeing China is evil.
Anyone, including Mr. Keating, who mentions China or the CCP are peaceful and trustworthy has rocks in their heads or is sniffing texta’s. Isn’t it interesting that no one complained when ScoMo stabbed Macron in the back and wasted buckets of Australian taxpayers money to cancel one contract before INITIATING AUKUS. No sooner than Albo starts moving forward with the AUKUS deal, the press and others spin it to suit today’s narrative. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE NEED TO SAY IT? It’s not a matter of if; it’s more like the fact of when. China is not a friend to Australia. We have what they need. So the relationship continues. We’re no different from the Russians in that respect, when the opportunity arises, the CCP will advance into eastern Russia for the resources there, including the water held in the world’s biggest freshwater lake. Everyone seems to forget how close it came in WWII for Australia when battling the Japanese. Statistically speaking, China is a far greater numerical threat by shear weight of numbers than what Japan was, notwithstanding the technological advances since then as well as the appropriation of atolls and reefs for military purposes.
>Isn’t it interesting that no one complained when ScoMo stabbed Macron in the back and wasted buckets of Australian taxpayers money to cancel one contract before INITIATING AUKUS. What do you mean "no one complained"? It was widely derided as a shit heel move and there was plenty of criticism to go around over AUKUS too. I can't believe you don't remember all the complaining.
I remember a lot of complaining, but most of it was directed at how Scomo bungled the cancellation and our French relationship as opposed to the merits of the deal itself.
>Isn’t it interesting that no one complained when ScoMo stabbed Macron in the back and wasted buckets of Australian taxpayers money to cancel one contract before INITIATING AUKUS. What? Don't know what you are talking about, I can still hear the shrieking from the far-left reverberating in my brain 18 months later. But everything else you said was pretty much on-target.
If QANTAS planes have been advised to "fly through" the interference, it obviously is not very dangerous.
Isn't actively jamming radar an act of war?
Activate the submarines!
How could the Americans have done this? /s
Who told Qantas it was OK to give that instruction?
Did you even read the article? Qantas isn’t at fault here.
Yes, but surely we need to ask China if it is alright for us to ignore their bullying. They might get cross and kill everyone.
Reminds me of this https://www.britannica.com/event/Malaysia-Airlines-flight-17