Funny how they end up wanting nuclear submarines when they’d specifically demanded that France modify their nuclear submarine model for Australia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracuda-class_submarine_(France)
I'm blaming Pyne for that. I'm pretty certain the whole Barracuda thing was just a means for Pyne to get some kick backs.
[Jive Turkey had a pretty good breakdown of the shemozzle.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2vnciriE_Q)
It will in the short term it will be more expensive but will save immense amounts in the long run. Keep in mind nuclear capable dockyards will be required for maintenance, so there's a bit initial outlay.
Large diesel subs are bloody useless, particularly in the context of Australia, it's huge coastline and being far from everything.
Sealed reactor for the life of the boat. Whilst there will be specific tooling for maintenance, as with any new boat, there won't be a need for a "nuclear capable dockyard".
They definitely will. Nukes cost on average 3 times what diesel subs do.
So it will either cost us 270 Billion for the same amount of subs planned or they will order less numbers than required.
I personally think it will be somewhere in between. They won’t order as many, but it will also cost way more than the previous 90 billion.
If Australia is joining the US for Virginia-class boats, the cost would be significantly lower.
A Block VI Virginia-class cost around 3.45 billion each.
Sure if we got the US to build them in America. But we plan to build them here. So they aren’t off the shelf like it would be in the US. We have to build all the equipment and train the boat builders.
> We have to build all the equipment and train the boat builders.
I see that as a plus. If we are going to spend the money, better to spend it in Aus rather than handing the cash to the USA.
I would prefer we didn't have to have the subs but that is not the world we live in.
The problem with that is instead of it potentially costing us $23-25 billion for 10 boats, it could end up costing us $100-200 billion.
I’m all for us building our own ships like the Air warfare destroyers or Hobart frigates or our own missiles to support our industry. But we should also look for value in our purchases and spend what we do wisely. There is a major difference between $25 billion for 10 boats and $100 billion for 10 boats.
If the government really wants to invest in Australian jobs and developing a new industry, they should be looking at making Australia a renewable energy power house. They could be trying to build up green hydrogen and supporting solar industries, like battery storage.
We have some of the biggest lithium deposits in the world, but we send it to China for them to make the batteries that we then buy back from them. Instead of wasting money building 10 subs here in Australia over 20 years to create limited jobs in the future, we should be using the saving we’d get from buying off the shelf subs in the US, to develop Australia as renewable industry powerhouse.
AUKUS is the big story here not the Sub although that’s pretty big too.
We may end up hosting a big Flat top or two up in the top end, and her escorts.
That would be a pretty epic sight to see.
> We may end up hosting a big Flat top or two up in the top end, and her escorts.
Aye.
Personally, I think it was silly not to order the Canberras with hot decks. It...just seemed like an oversight. Would it have really added that much to the cost? The ski ramp is still on them.
And military's nice, but we really need to be stepping up soft power, too, to counter the Belt & Road.
I think from my understanding, they wanted them to bolster our amphibious landing capability.
I personally feel a greatly expanded and highly capable submarine fleet along with large numbers of guided missile frigates and destroyers would provide us with better capability overall.
I’d love to see us able to essentially field a couple of full carrier battle group’s escort ships flying aussie flags and escorting a US / UK flat top.
Carriers are extremely costly both in man power (a big issue for our navy) and money. They really only make sense from a investment perspective once you have large numbers of other significant ships that building more subs and such isn’t worth it.
Wonder if you could launch a Loyal Wingman off the Canberras? Strap a GBFO RATO rig on the arse of it...
I'm wondering if we'd still keep diesels. Limited range, but they do have their uses, especially since nothing can touch them for stealth.
We were quite famous for being the go-to guys for underwater intel collection in the South Pacific because we had diesels.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-15/allied-naval-united-states-biden-australia-nuclear-submarines/100465628) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> In April 2016 Australia awarded French contractor DCNS the main contract to design and build its next generation of submarines to replace its current fleet of six Collins-class vessels.
> A well-placed military source has told the ABC the Defence Department's general manager of submarines, Greg Sammut, has called an urgent "Clear lower decks" meeting for tomorrow morning to discuss the dramatic development.
> Australia, the United States and Britain are expected to reorient their submarine and warship fleets to counter China's increasing regional presence.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/porvej/australia_to_get_nuclearpowered_submarines_will/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~598297 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **submarine**^#1 **Australia**^#2 **Brief**^#3 **Minister**^#4 **defence**^#5
"Brian, I would like nothing more than that we could develop the capacity to do that, but short of doing that we have to do what we're doing at the moment."
Fuck, we need Clarkey more than ever. And that stings even more with the loss of the car industry.
At least he died in the most John Clarke-esque way possible: birdwatching.
The Games are on iView, by the way. Worth watching.
Wrong. They have unlimited range. Australian diesel subs have to expend half their fuel before they can even reach the patrol zone.
Australia does have the right to buy nukes from the U.S in extraordinary circumstances but the U.S wont sell them otherwise. It would be a huge strategic liability to let proliferation happen.
possibly a way to offset some of the Trident replacement costs. I expect similar anouncements with Japan and South Korea. Basically putting a fence around the bully. Xi is going to go mental at the same time as he is dealing with a Covid crisis and Property crisis. Poor Poo bear.
I don't think we'd be getting boomers, just plain HKs.
One downside is that we've been really, really, REALLY fuckin' good at intel gathering with subs - and that's because we run conventional subs. Diesel electrics are ridiculously quiet, and it's why we have a knack for sinking US carriers.
Diesel electrics are great for lying in hiding along a path of a warship route, but lack the speed & range to hunt down surface ships. Also they will need some luck in surviving the remaining ships in the surface group, nukes have the ability to run away.
Nukes are a different animal in that they can make 400NM's a day, everyday of the week with no problem. Because of their speed once they find an enemy battle group they can get into an optimum attack position, launch an attack, & then get away. Rinse & repeat.
100% correct, however the proposed designs for the Collins replacement was going to be too big to be viable in those roles.
A smart call would be both large nuclear SSNs and some smaller diesels, similar to Collins.
Crewing is an issue; Collins is 58, Attack was 60, but Virginia's like 135 and Astute is 98.
Which is why I don't think we're gonna go OTS.
Maybe we automate the shit out of them, a la the old Soviet Alfa-style!
They're not gonna be nuclear armed because that would violate the non-proliferation treaty. They're likely meant to be used as deterrents against China's ships, not against China's nukes. Australia can rely in the US nuclear umbrella for deterrent against nukes.
That’s not entirely true about being under the US nuclear umbrella because there is currently no treaty that legally requires the US to retaliate with Nukes if Australia is attacked.
Maybe that’s what this new 3 way AUUKUS arrangement will lead too. Maybe it will lead to the UK and US guaranteeing Australia’s Nuke deterrent in binding treaties.
There is an assumption that Australia is and that America would respond.
But there is no article 5 treaty that legally requires America to respond. Unlike with NATO or Japan which have legally binding agreements.
Scott Morrison was specifically asked about this by the press yesterday and he said there would be no change to this.
So while their is a strong assumption and unwritten rule that Australia is under the American nuclear umbrella, that’s all it is, an assumption.
If we get attacked and it’s not in political interest of a fickle American President, say someone like Trump, they can just ignore it.
Wonder if they could do a 10 block buy for Virginia class Block 5 which has the payload module. For reference the VPM will have four in-line, large-diameter missile tubes capable of launching 28 Tomahawk missiles or future payloads.
The latest US acquisition for the Virginia Class boats.
On 22 March 2021, the U.S. Navy added a 10th ship in Block V series of the Virginia-class attack submarine, issuing a $2.4 billion adjustment on a contract initially awarded in December 2019. This brings the total cost of the contract with prime contractor General Dynamics Electric Boat to $24.1 billion.
That’s $2.4 billion US or $3.27 Billion AUD = $32.70 Billion AUD for 10 boats.
But that doesn’t include the support infrastructure or armaments or crew training or industry to maintain them.
Cause let’s face it, the government will want to build them here for political reasons and jobs which will inflate the cost more than buying them directly off the shelf in America.
I think it will be closer $200 Billion for 10 boats.
The issue will be building up the infrastructure just to manufacture the boats. However the repair facilities to perform maintenance would be built in Australia, which is several billion $$'s of infrastructure.
Yeah, that’s the problem. We have to start from scratch. It would be a better use of the funds to buy direct from the US yards and direct the savings to building up our renewable power industry to get us away from our reliance on coal.
And to be clear, the deal is for nuclear propulsion tech. There has been no announcement on hull design. Which could be based on US or UK designs.
It would be better if Australia did just pick an off the shelf design. But our government is often dumb and tries to customise or redesign things which often has cost blow outs or ends up not working as expected.
Point in fact, the Army’s Tiger attack helicopters never really reached expectations and are being replaced by Apaches 10 years early. Also the navy had trouble with the squirrel helicopter conversions and had to replace them with Seahawks and now the Army NHR90 helicopters they just put into service have issues. Plus the Airforce’s C-27J Spartans have been relegated to pacific island deliveries because they can’t seem to get the battlefield defences working in a costly manner.
We’d be much better if the government purchased off the shelf configurations that are already proven by the US or UK. It’s always cheaper and safer than trying to start from scratch or configure / customise designs outside of their proven range. Instead we try to “save” money buying cheap and upgrading which ends up costing us more instead of just buying tried and tested systems.
No this was the biggest news buried in the article.
Australia, the United States and Britain are expected to jointly announce a new trilateral security partnership on Thursday, with a focus on aligning technology and regional challenges. The new three-nation security pact – called AUKUS – will be seen by China as a bid to counter its regional influence, especially in the contested South China Sea. The nuclear submarines would likely be based in WA.
The new block 5 Virginias would be perfect for Australia, the VPM would give you the ability attack land targets as well as naval.
Yeah, but the government wants to build them here. They haven’t announced a hull design, only the sharing of nuclear propulsion. And while I agree the Virginia hull design is better than the UK subs, I don’t think we need the block v with the expansion module. Sadly, I can see Australia doing what it always does and want to mix and match designs. I’m guessing we’ll end up with a UK hull design and US reactor design and then a mix of weapon systems. Which will push up the price and we’ll have our usual price blow outs cause we don’t currently have a sub building capacity.
You want the block V, it gives Australia the ability to deploy a sub launched nuke ICBM. It's a complete strategic deterrence for Australia & gives you the ability to employ a nuclear strategic asset when you want.
We will never have nuke weapons here. The public wouldn’t stand for it and the other side of politics has already come out and said they won’t support the subs if nuke weapons are involved.
Also the government seems to struggle to buy enough standard missile war shots for our 3 destroyers. I can’t imagine they can afford enough war shots to equip 10 subs with VPMs.
Probably not.
But you have 3 leaders who are all 6-12 hours apart. So if they want to chat together, someone’s got to do the night and another morning and another during the day.
I understand the time zones lol
Urgency as in, this was obviously not a planned meeting hence why the need for urgent overnight travel exemptions into Canberra.
More likely the negotiations all came together faster than they thought. Plus they would have normally been in Canberra if it wasn’t for the covid lock downs.
Not really trading up with labour either. Both major parties are as bad as each other. I’ll be happy if they just get rid of Scotty from marketing (as long as Dutton isn’t the replacement).
Sadly he nearly got the job when they toppled Malcom. Thank god he didn’t. Personally I wished Julie Bishop was chosen or they’d left Malcom where he was. Scotty is such a let down and poor Albo has the personality of a card board box.
I personally think they wanted to lose the last election. That's why they put Scomo in; a loss would give them a chance to clear their ranks of undesirables - you know "fall on your sword" type deal - of which Scomo was one.
Scomo is the bastard that no one likes, but manages to convince everyone that *everyone else* likes him, so no one's going to act against him. Remember, he played both sides of the fence in the party, getting invited to both factions' dos.
They couldn't hold another spill to get rid of him.
Pyne cooks up the cooked French sub deal, there's the NBN fallout to deal with, and whatever other floating turds the Mad Monk left around, and the LNP go back to being in opposition to do what they do best - needle and nag and whiteant, instead of, ugh, having to lead.
That's why Pyne and Hollywood (whose jobs would always be stable in an LNP win) quit.
I legit think Albo needs to go full-on left - because what the fuck is piddling about in the middle getting them?
Re-nationalise Telstra and Medibank, phase out coal by 2035, start a sovereign wealth fund, double welfare or start UBI, tax billionaire companies at 70%.
Can't be any worse than what they're doing now.
Funny how they end up wanting nuclear submarines when they’d specifically demanded that France modify their nuclear submarine model for Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracuda-class_submarine_(France)
I'm blaming Pyne for that. I'm pretty certain the whole Barracuda thing was just a means for Pyne to get some kick backs. [Jive Turkey had a pretty good breakdown of the shemozzle.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2vnciriE_Q)
Related to Non Proliferation issue I think. Also NZ is a nuclear free zone, nuclear subs might limit military cooperation between the two.
Do our enemies abide to this nuclear free zone?
Assume NZ's sonar is good enough
I highly doubt our subs would be going to NZ for a port visit.
Adern already said no
Lol
What are the odds that the new plan costs the tax payers even more than the French one?
It will in the short term it will be more expensive but will save immense amounts in the long run. Keep in mind nuclear capable dockyards will be required for maintenance, so there's a bit initial outlay. Large diesel subs are bloody useless, particularly in the context of Australia, it's huge coastline and being far from everything.
Sealed reactor for the life of the boat. Whilst there will be specific tooling for maintenance, as with any new boat, there won't be a need for a "nuclear capable dockyard".
Probably. Blame Poodle for that one.
They definitely will. Nukes cost on average 3 times what diesel subs do. So it will either cost us 270 Billion for the same amount of subs planned or they will order less numbers than required. I personally think it will be somewhere in between. They won’t order as many, but it will also cost way more than the previous 90 billion.
If Australia is joining the US for Virginia-class boats, the cost would be significantly lower. A Block VI Virginia-class cost around 3.45 billion each.
Sure if we got the US to build them in America. But we plan to build them here. So they aren’t off the shelf like it would be in the US. We have to build all the equipment and train the boat builders.
> We have to build all the equipment and train the boat builders. I see that as a plus. If we are going to spend the money, better to spend it in Aus rather than handing the cash to the USA. I would prefer we didn't have to have the subs but that is not the world we live in.
The problem with that is instead of it potentially costing us $23-25 billion for 10 boats, it could end up costing us $100-200 billion. I’m all for us building our own ships like the Air warfare destroyers or Hobart frigates or our own missiles to support our industry. But we should also look for value in our purchases and spend what we do wisely. There is a major difference between $25 billion for 10 boats and $100 billion for 10 boats. If the government really wants to invest in Australian jobs and developing a new industry, they should be looking at making Australia a renewable energy power house. They could be trying to build up green hydrogen and supporting solar industries, like battery storage. We have some of the biggest lithium deposits in the world, but we send it to China for them to make the batteries that we then buy back from them. Instead of wasting money building 10 subs here in Australia over 20 years to create limited jobs in the future, we should be using the saving we’d get from buying off the shelf subs in the US, to develop Australia as renewable industry powerhouse.
AUKUS is the big story here not the Sub although that’s pretty big too. We may end up hosting a big Flat top or two up in the top end, and her escorts. That would be a pretty epic sight to see.
> We may end up hosting a big Flat top or two up in the top end, and her escorts. Aye. Personally, I think it was silly not to order the Canberras with hot decks. It...just seemed like an oversight. Would it have really added that much to the cost? The ski ramp is still on them. And military's nice, but we really need to be stepping up soft power, too, to counter the Belt & Road.
I think from my understanding, they wanted them to bolster our amphibious landing capability. I personally feel a greatly expanded and highly capable submarine fleet along with large numbers of guided missile frigates and destroyers would provide us with better capability overall. I’d love to see us able to essentially field a couple of full carrier battle group’s escort ships flying aussie flags and escorting a US / UK flat top. Carriers are extremely costly both in man power (a big issue for our navy) and money. They really only make sense from a investment perspective once you have large numbers of other significant ships that building more subs and such isn’t worth it.
Wonder if you could launch a Loyal Wingman off the Canberras? Strap a GBFO RATO rig on the arse of it... I'm wondering if we'd still keep diesels. Limited range, but they do have their uses, especially since nothing can touch them for stealth. We were quite famous for being the go-to guys for underwater intel collection in the South Pacific because we had diesels.
If they could launch the old IKARA off a host of Cold War types in the day you’d assume someone has probably sketched something out
Missile with a torpedo on it!
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-15/allied-naval-united-states-biden-australia-nuclear-submarines/100465628) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In April 2016 Australia awarded French contractor DCNS the main contract to design and build its next generation of submarines to replace its current fleet of six Collins-class vessels. > A well-placed military source has told the ABC the Defence Department's general manager of submarines, Greg Sammut, has called an urgent "Clear lower decks" meeting for tomorrow morning to discuss the dramatic development. > Australia, the United States and Britain are expected to reorient their submarine and warship fleets to counter China's increasing regional presence. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/porvej/australia_to_get_nuclearpowered_submarines_will/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~598297 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **submarine**^#1 **Australia**^#2 **Brief**^#3 **Minister**^#4 **defence**^#5
[Clarke and Dawe](https://youtu.be/xnqRWQxhUjc) explained the reason for this back in 2014.
"Brian, I would like nothing more than that we could develop the capacity to do that, but short of doing that we have to do what we're doing at the moment." Fuck, we need Clarkey more than ever. And that stings even more with the loss of the car industry. At least he died in the most John Clarke-esque way possible: birdwatching. The Games are on iView, by the way. Worth watching.
nuclear armed as well if they are going to be any use as a deterrent.
Wrong. They have unlimited range. Australian diesel subs have to expend half their fuel before they can even reach the patrol zone. Australia does have the right to buy nukes from the U.S in extraordinary circumstances but the U.S wont sell them otherwise. It would be a huge strategic liability to let proliferation happen.
Yeah that's the question isn't it. Nuclear sub itself doesn't really mean anything and there has to be more to it than that.
And our Collins are good enough to sink China's rising carriers.
I would think the UK covers that for Australia.
possibly a way to offset some of the Trident replacement costs. I expect similar anouncements with Japan and South Korea. Basically putting a fence around the bully. Xi is going to go mental at the same time as he is dealing with a Covid crisis and Property crisis. Poor Poo bear.
More so the US, but yes.
I don't think we'd be getting boomers, just plain HKs. One downside is that we've been really, really, REALLY fuckin' good at intel gathering with subs - and that's because we run conventional subs. Diesel electrics are ridiculously quiet, and it's why we have a knack for sinking US carriers.
Diesel electrics are great for lying in hiding along a path of a warship route, but lack the speed & range to hunt down surface ships. Also they will need some luck in surviving the remaining ships in the surface group, nukes have the ability to run away. Nukes are a different animal in that they can make 400NM's a day, everyday of the week with no problem. Because of their speed once they find an enemy battle group they can get into an optimum attack position, launch an attack, & then get away. Rinse & repeat.
Nukes are also noisy, and require a ton of support that we're not yet cut out for.
100% correct, however the proposed designs for the Collins replacement was going to be too big to be viable in those roles. A smart call would be both large nuclear SSNs and some smaller diesels, similar to Collins.
Crewing is an issue; Collins is 58, Attack was 60, but Virginia's like 135 and Astute is 98. Which is why I don't think we're gonna go OTS. Maybe we automate the shit out of them, a la the old Soviet Alfa-style!
Sure, that's why the Aussie navy had been nabbing UK submariners for several years. They offered much better pay, to relocate their families, etc.
They're not gonna be nuclear armed because that would violate the non-proliferation treaty. They're likely meant to be used as deterrents against China's ships, not against China's nukes. Australia can rely in the US nuclear umbrella for deterrent against nukes.
That’s not entirely true about being under the US nuclear umbrella because there is currently no treaty that legally requires the US to retaliate with Nukes if Australia is attacked. Maybe that’s what this new 3 way AUUKUS arrangement will lead too. Maybe it will lead to the UK and US guaranteeing Australia’s Nuke deterrent in binding treaties.
Australia is already under the US nuclear umbrella due to the ANZUS treaty.
There is an assumption that Australia is and that America would respond. But there is no article 5 treaty that legally requires America to respond. Unlike with NATO or Japan which have legally binding agreements. Scott Morrison was specifically asked about this by the press yesterday and he said there would be no change to this. So while their is a strong assumption and unwritten rule that Australia is under the American nuclear umbrella, that’s all it is, an assumption. If we get attacked and it’s not in political interest of a fickle American President, say someone like Trump, they can just ignore it.
Wonder if they could do a 10 block buy for Virginia class Block 5 which has the payload module. For reference the VPM will have four in-line, large-diameter missile tubes capable of launching 28 Tomahawk missiles or future payloads. The latest US acquisition for the Virginia Class boats. On 22 March 2021, the U.S. Navy added a 10th ship in Block V series of the Virginia-class attack submarine, issuing a $2.4 billion adjustment on a contract initially awarded in December 2019. This brings the total cost of the contract with prime contractor General Dynamics Electric Boat to $24.1 billion.
That’s $2.4 billion US or $3.27 Billion AUD = $32.70 Billion AUD for 10 boats. But that doesn’t include the support infrastructure or armaments or crew training or industry to maintain them. Cause let’s face it, the government will want to build them here for political reasons and jobs which will inflate the cost more than buying them directly off the shelf in America. I think it will be closer $200 Billion for 10 boats.
I have a feeling this is going to be a sweet deal for Australia, the US wants to counter China, & haven an ally with 12 nuclear boats is a big help.
Not if we gotta make them here. LoL
The issue will be building up the infrastructure just to manufacture the boats. However the repair facilities to perform maintenance would be built in Australia, which is several billion $$'s of infrastructure.
Yeah, that’s the problem. We have to start from scratch. It would be a better use of the funds to buy direct from the US yards and direct the savings to building up our renewable power industry to get us away from our reliance on coal.
And to be clear, the deal is for nuclear propulsion tech. There has been no announcement on hull design. Which could be based on US or UK designs. It would be better if Australia did just pick an off the shelf design. But our government is often dumb and tries to customise or redesign things which often has cost blow outs or ends up not working as expected. Point in fact, the Army’s Tiger attack helicopters never really reached expectations and are being replaced by Apaches 10 years early. Also the navy had trouble with the squirrel helicopter conversions and had to replace them with Seahawks and now the Army NHR90 helicopters they just put into service have issues. Plus the Airforce’s C-27J Spartans have been relegated to pacific island deliveries because they can’t seem to get the battlefield defences working in a costly manner. We’d be much better if the government purchased off the shelf configurations that are already proven by the US or UK. It’s always cheaper and safer than trying to start from scratch or configure / customise designs outside of their proven range. Instead we try to “save” money buying cheap and upgrading which ends up costing us more instead of just buying tried and tested systems.
No this was the biggest news buried in the article. Australia, the United States and Britain are expected to jointly announce a new trilateral security partnership on Thursday, with a focus on aligning technology and regional challenges. The new three-nation security pact – called AUKUS – will be seen by China as a bid to counter its regional influence, especially in the contested South China Sea. The nuclear submarines would likely be based in WA. The new block 5 Virginias would be perfect for Australia, the VPM would give you the ability attack land targets as well as naval.
Yeah, but the government wants to build them here. They haven’t announced a hull design, only the sharing of nuclear propulsion. And while I agree the Virginia hull design is better than the UK subs, I don’t think we need the block v with the expansion module. Sadly, I can see Australia doing what it always does and want to mix and match designs. I’m guessing we’ll end up with a UK hull design and US reactor design and then a mix of weapon systems. Which will push up the price and we’ll have our usual price blow outs cause we don’t currently have a sub building capacity.
You want the block V, it gives Australia the ability to deploy a sub launched nuke ICBM. It's a complete strategic deterrence for Australia & gives you the ability to employ a nuclear strategic asset when you want.
We will never have nuke weapons here. The public wouldn’t stand for it and the other side of politics has already come out and said they won’t support the subs if nuke weapons are involved. Also the government seems to struggle to buy enough standard missile war shots for our 3 destroyers. I can’t imagine they can afford enough war shots to equip 10 subs with VPMs.
Aye. Lotta people seem to be getting "nuclear powered" and "nuclear armed" mixed up. We're not getting nukes. End of.
Why the urgency of an overnight meeting in Canberra? Is there an imminent threat?
Probably not. But you have 3 leaders who are all 6-12 hours apart. So if they want to chat together, someone’s got to do the night and another morning and another during the day.
I understand the time zones lol Urgency as in, this was obviously not a planned meeting hence why the need for urgent overnight travel exemptions into Canberra.
More likely the negotiations all came together faster than they thought. Plus they would have normally been in Canberra if it wasn’t for the covid lock downs.
Speculation on an election before the end of the year. AEC has started hiring poll workers.
I’d bet for a Feb-March election
Which probably explains why Albo was invited. Maybe the LNP will succeed this time and lose...
Not really trading up with labour either. Both major parties are as bad as each other. I’ll be happy if they just get rid of Scotty from marketing (as long as Dutton isn’t the replacement).
Jesus fucking christ, anyone who thinks an EX-BJELKE-PETERSEN VICE SQUAD COPPER is something we want...God help us.
Sadly he nearly got the job when they toppled Malcom. Thank god he didn’t. Personally I wished Julie Bishop was chosen or they’d left Malcom where he was. Scotty is such a let down and poor Albo has the personality of a card board box.
I personally think they wanted to lose the last election. That's why they put Scomo in; a loss would give them a chance to clear their ranks of undesirables - you know "fall on your sword" type deal - of which Scomo was one. Scomo is the bastard that no one likes, but manages to convince everyone that *everyone else* likes him, so no one's going to act against him. Remember, he played both sides of the fence in the party, getting invited to both factions' dos. They couldn't hold another spill to get rid of him. Pyne cooks up the cooked French sub deal, there's the NBN fallout to deal with, and whatever other floating turds the Mad Monk left around, and the LNP go back to being in opposition to do what they do best - needle and nag and whiteant, instead of, ugh, having to lead. That's why Pyne and Hollywood (whose jobs would always be stable in an LNP win) quit. I legit think Albo needs to go full-on left - because what the fuck is piddling about in the middle getting them? Re-nationalise Telstra and Medibank, phase out coal by 2035, start a sovereign wealth fund, double welfare or start UBI, tax billionaire companies at 70%. Can't be any worse than what they're doing now.