But not without a change in policy! At present, it's not possible, any more than it was last year, or 20 years ago. That may change, but so far, any change is hypothetical. The reality is that no export permits can be issued for Japanese exports of military equipment unless there is a change of a 40+ year policy, which, regardless of what the Japanese defence minister might like, the current prime minister (i.e. his boss) is not pursuing.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
but this is getting down to definition of detail. eg we might not have picked up physical digital boxes to use in subs, but the japanese have sure been transferring knowledge from their hypersonics programs to us when they've been trialling out at woomera.
its like masterchefs - its how you plate up in the end....
just to add, 10 years ago the JMSDF was loathe to be seen to doing anything which might smack of stepping outside the bounds of policy, their maritime senior sirs today are actively courting RAN across a number of levels.
fundamentally any change requires absolute policy direction, but already, in developments such as hypersonics and AI management of UAV's its already happening.
"same bloke differet haircut" scenario, but it is happening already. the japanese are doing the same with the USN 7th fleet (which ironically is how the change in attitudes and intent towards australian developments and interchange probably started) In fact I would argue that the defensive/military tech sharing/interoperability issues have started as a direct result of how we have worked together at RIMPAC - it has provided the political baseline, china going hardline has just given it legs.
Last edited:
This is off topic from the core material, but is meant to add some further colour to how the relationship and attitudes within japan are changing:
its probably worth pursuing in a sep thread rather than continue on in here. again, its meant to add some inflexion, not become a "cause celebre" of motive..
October 6-7, 2010 -- Japan fast-tracking nuclear weapons acquisition
New information obtained by WMR from Asian intelligence sources points to Japan fast-tracking nuclear weapons acquisition as a result of Japan's tense relations with China, Tokyo's frayed relations with Washington, and fears over North Korea's nuclear weapons.
Japan no longer believes its security treaty with the United States is reliable and Tokyo has decided, even with a strong tradition of anti-nuclear weapons sentiment among the Japanese people arising out of the U.S. atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, that the country has no other choice but to scrap its commitment to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and opt for an independent Japanese nuclear deterrence capability.
Japan reportedly has the capability to assemble nuclear weapons in 18 hours. That is in marked contrast to its previous assemblage time frame of 40 hours. Current-generation Japanese missiles, with nuclear warheads, are can be programmed to target the large Chinese cities and naval bases along the Pacific coast.
WMR has been told that Japan war planners have discussed a joint strategy with India to take out Chinese ballistic launchers in the interior of China with missiles launched from India. The Indian option would be in place until Japan could upgrade its M-5 missile to serve as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) delivery platform to target China's interior nuclear missile sites and bring Moscow, which is 7000 miles from Japan, within range.
As far as Japanese defenses are concerned, Tokyo, itself, is a hardened city, with an infrastructure for the government and VIPs to survive and escape underground to new headquarters in the event of a Chinese nuclear strike.
Japan has a number of granite mountains from where second and third strikes against China could be launched. Since the Chinese cities are much more heavily populated, China would take staggering casualties in a nuclear exchange, and the sheer number of victims would swamp the Chinese government's ability to cope much less govern.
Japanese nuclear war planners have concluded the Japanese are psychologically prepared to move on with a smaller population after a nuclear exchange with China and/or North Korea. Some Japanese war planners feel a nuclear war could actually be good for long-term economic development, as strange as that seems, since it would destroy a lot of backward capital and force new initiatives to go forward. The nuclear trauma has already been absorbed and incorporated in the Japanese psyche, so the Japanese are probably the most capable of maintaining social order and reorganizing after a global nuclear catastrophe. The bottom line for Tokyo is that nuclear war is survivable, though the victims would be numerous and the damage nearly unthinkable.
Japan is also in no mood to be lectured by the United States if it decides to abandon its NPT treaty commitments. A nuclear Japan will use the lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to argue for a swift nuclear retaliatory response, that is, if any country launches a nuclear weapon on Japan, Japan's nuclear response will be total with a goal of wiping the aggressor off the map.
If Japan deep-sixes its NPT obligations, a half-dozen countries are expected to follow suit, primarily South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, and possibly, Turkey.
its probably worth pursuing in a sep thread rather than continue on in here. again, its meant to add some inflexion, not become a "cause celebre" of motive..
October 6-7, 2010 -- Japan fast-tracking nuclear weapons acquisition
New information obtained by WMR from Asian intelligence sources points to Japan fast-tracking nuclear weapons acquisition as a result of Japan's tense relations with China, Tokyo's frayed relations with Washington, and fears over North Korea's nuclear weapons.
Japan no longer believes its security treaty with the United States is reliable and Tokyo has decided, even with a strong tradition of anti-nuclear weapons sentiment among the Japanese people arising out of the U.S. atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, that the country has no other choice but to scrap its commitment to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and opt for an independent Japanese nuclear deterrence capability.
Japan reportedly has the capability to assemble nuclear weapons in 18 hours. That is in marked contrast to its previous assemblage time frame of 40 hours. Current-generation Japanese missiles, with nuclear warheads, are can be programmed to target the large Chinese cities and naval bases along the Pacific coast.
WMR has been told that Japan war planners have discussed a joint strategy with India to take out Chinese ballistic launchers in the interior of China with missiles launched from India. The Indian option would be in place until Japan could upgrade its M-5 missile to serve as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) delivery platform to target China's interior nuclear missile sites and bring Moscow, which is 7000 miles from Japan, within range.
As far as Japanese defenses are concerned, Tokyo, itself, is a hardened city, with an infrastructure for the government and VIPs to survive and escape underground to new headquarters in the event of a Chinese nuclear strike.
Japan has a number of granite mountains from where second and third strikes against China could be launched. Since the Chinese cities are much more heavily populated, China would take staggering casualties in a nuclear exchange, and the sheer number of victims would swamp the Chinese government's ability to cope much less govern.
Japanese nuclear war planners have concluded the Japanese are psychologically prepared to move on with a smaller population after a nuclear exchange with China and/or North Korea. Some Japanese war planners feel a nuclear war could actually be good for long-term economic development, as strange as that seems, since it would destroy a lot of backward capital and force new initiatives to go forward. The nuclear trauma has already been absorbed and incorporated in the Japanese psyche, so the Japanese are probably the most capable of maintaining social order and reorganizing after a global nuclear catastrophe. The bottom line for Tokyo is that nuclear war is survivable, though the victims would be numerous and the damage nearly unthinkable.
Japan is also in no mood to be lectured by the United States if it decides to abandon its NPT treaty commitments. A nuclear Japan will use the lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to argue for a swift nuclear retaliatory response, that is, if any country launches a nuclear weapon on Japan, Japan's nuclear response will be total with a goal of wiping the aggressor off the map.
If Japan deep-sixes its NPT obligations, a half-dozen countries are expected to follow suit, primarily South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, and possibly, Turkey.
shanes_world_05
Member
Apologies for going even further off topic
I'm sorry GF but 40 HOURS to 18 HOURS? Do you think this source is credible? I dont doubt you, your alot closer to the action and been a great source of info but all the indications I have seen (nowhere near as authoritative as what you would see) were from 3 to 6 months.
I am hoping for a more confident Japan emerging. Selfishly to balance a charging China with the prospects of America being a little under the economic weather for a bit longer but just as a curiosity does anyone know of the political, solicial and diplomatic situation with Japan in the early 30's and if there would be any parallels there? Not wanting to cast dispersion on a strong ally but feel a little history always helps add context. Sorry this is off topic - does it warrant a separate thread?
As a question more on topic, the training and testing cycle to crew up the 2x collins that are inactive, how long would that be in a serious confrontation scenario with say a hypothetical country called say..... Blina....No too obvious......how about chana? And if that were likely would some NZ volunteers from the RNZN help in such a scenario or just be a hindrance?
I'm sorry GF but 40 HOURS to 18 HOURS? Do you think this source is credible? I dont doubt you, your alot closer to the action and been a great source of info but all the indications I have seen (nowhere near as authoritative as what you would see) were from 3 to 6 months.
I am hoping for a more confident Japan emerging. Selfishly to balance a charging China with the prospects of America being a little under the economic weather for a bit longer but just as a curiosity does anyone know of the political, solicial and diplomatic situation with Japan in the early 30's and if there would be any parallels there? Not wanting to cast dispersion on a strong ally but feel a little history always helps add context. Sorry this is off topic - does it warrant a separate thread?
As a question more on topic, the training and testing cycle to crew up the 2x collins that are inactive, how long would that be in a serious confrontation scenario with say a hypothetical country called say..... Blina....No too obvious......how about chana? And if that were likely would some NZ volunteers from the RNZN help in such a scenario or just be a hindrance?
Very interesting post. But I will leave direct comments for another thread.
Australia doesn't have the back end infrastructure to go nuclear. Many unis have shadow physics departments, those that do have extremely small and isolated nuclear energy researchers. While other capable people can be moved into it, then we lose people doing capable things in important fields. We don't have 3rd, 2nd or 1st year qualified Physics teachers in schools or TAFE, we don't have the capability to train teachers, lecturers, industry. The is nearly no experience, and ANSTO has recently retired a lot of the people who had first hand experience in most of this stuff when the government was spending bigger in these areas in the 50's and 60's and experience gained working with personel involved in projects overseas.
Its not just that we should go nuclear, we can't. It would take a massive multidecade approach partnering with a first rate nation. Even if you send every sailor and trades person who touches the boat to the US for a year traing (talking thousands of personel), its still not going to work. We are not France, Germany, UK, US, Canada or Japan etc they have a backbone of skill they can draw on.
We have to stay conventionals. I say huge boats (10,000t), huge reserves of diesel. I know GF isn't a fan of gas turbine, but you can get huge power density. A LM2500+ in the sail (or even in the hull breathing through VLS style tubes located near the sail with telescopic risers). An hour run on (or near) the surface could fully charge the huge storage capacity while doing 30kt+. It could do this with allied fleets(or shipping) providing cover. It could keep up with US fleet movements while charging. It will also provide the capability to get on station and return much faster (even if a conventional diesel is out of action). Then 2 conventional turbocharged diesels for snorkelling. I don't think AIP makes sense on big ocean going boats and will drive up costs for what we want. We want more boats, get more boats, don't drive up the cost exponentially for marginal improvement in a few tiny criteria.
I know lm2500 are big so perhaps something smaller like multiple LM500 which would be easily locatable in the sail an have more sensible ducting requirements. Or Lm1600 (out of the hornets?). having it in the sail reduceds expense to service/replace. It could be all located out of the main pressure hull, saving interior space, and no third IC engine is really required (but could also be used).
Having the GT do some of the "long haul" saves hours on the internal engine, meaning they last longer. And thus cracking the hull needs to be done less often. With pumpjets having a wide range of speeds is easier than before. The additional power capability makes up for any lack of efficency.
Having the sort of capability to recharge a large bank very quickly means we can afford electrically to power nuke class systems and sensors. You could also afford to power things previously not concidered on any type of boat. Fuel for the GT would be stored in a colapsable fuel bag like F1 cars use and salt water drawn in as its used, thus keeping GT fuel out of salt water.
We then would have a lower cost boat, with lower running costs, improved reliability, improved flexability, greater avalibility. By avoiding nuke and AIP you avoid the costs and limitations they impose, yet get benfits both offer. Your boats will be on station sooner, for longer with the same crew time requirement. Transit times for safe waters would be minimal. Basing out or near FBE and FBW now no longer becomes a huge issue.
While I like Virgina, Tango Bravo shows that there it still a lot of evolving to do. I don't think we can share hulls. I think we should COTS parts as much as possible with the americans, and there are whole entire systems we can do that with. With decoupled powertrains its much easier to do that as well.
Australia doesn't have the back end infrastructure to go nuclear. Many unis have shadow physics departments, those that do have extremely small and isolated nuclear energy researchers. While other capable people can be moved into it, then we lose people doing capable things in important fields. We don't have 3rd, 2nd or 1st year qualified Physics teachers in schools or TAFE, we don't have the capability to train teachers, lecturers, industry. The is nearly no experience, and ANSTO has recently retired a lot of the people who had first hand experience in most of this stuff when the government was spending bigger in these areas in the 50's and 60's and experience gained working with personel involved in projects overseas.
Its not just that we should go nuclear, we can't. It would take a massive multidecade approach partnering with a first rate nation. Even if you send every sailor and trades person who touches the boat to the US for a year traing (talking thousands of personel), its still not going to work. We are not France, Germany, UK, US, Canada or Japan etc they have a backbone of skill they can draw on.
We have to stay conventionals. I say huge boats (10,000t), huge reserves of diesel. I know GF isn't a fan of gas turbine, but you can get huge power density. A LM2500+ in the sail (or even in the hull breathing through VLS style tubes located near the sail with telescopic risers). An hour run on (or near) the surface could fully charge the huge storage capacity while doing 30kt+. It could do this with allied fleets(or shipping) providing cover. It could keep up with US fleet movements while charging. It will also provide the capability to get on station and return much faster (even if a conventional diesel is out of action). Then 2 conventional turbocharged diesels for snorkelling. I don't think AIP makes sense on big ocean going boats and will drive up costs for what we want. We want more boats, get more boats, don't drive up the cost exponentially for marginal improvement in a few tiny criteria.
I know lm2500 are big so perhaps something smaller like multiple LM500 which would be easily locatable in the sail an have more sensible ducting requirements. Or Lm1600 (out of the hornets?). having it in the sail reduceds expense to service/replace. It could be all located out of the main pressure hull, saving interior space, and no third IC engine is really required (but could also be used).
Having the GT do some of the "long haul" saves hours on the internal engine, meaning they last longer. And thus cracking the hull needs to be done less often. With pumpjets having a wide range of speeds is easier than before. The additional power capability makes up for any lack of efficency.
Having the sort of capability to recharge a large bank very quickly means we can afford electrically to power nuke class systems and sensors. You could also afford to power things previously not concidered on any type of boat. Fuel for the GT would be stored in a colapsable fuel bag like F1 cars use and salt water drawn in as its used, thus keeping GT fuel out of salt water.
We then would have a lower cost boat, with lower running costs, improved reliability, improved flexability, greater avalibility. By avoiding nuke and AIP you avoid the costs and limitations they impose, yet get benfits both offer. Your boats will be on station sooner, for longer with the same crew time requirement. Transit times for safe waters would be minimal. Basing out or near FBE and FBW now no longer becomes a huge issue.
While I like Virgina, Tango Bravo shows that there it still a lot of evolving to do. I don't think we can share hulls. I think we should COTS parts as much as possible with the americans, and there are whole entire systems we can do that with. With decoupled powertrains its much easier to do that as well.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
I noted that the USN haven't done any public cost studies to compare nuke vs conventional propelled subs (although they did for the CVN and surface ships) so it would be nice if you could actually explain the source of your Virginia costings.
There's the quick look studies but the inherent issues are reflected.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06789r.pdf
Won't bother with the surface ship study cos that was done in 77/78. But from CVN rpt in 1998, agree upfront cost is higher but maintenance and operational cost was not that much different (10% more for CVN vs CV but that again is due to manpower) with overall life cycle costs = 58% more.
The appropriate caveats should be noted.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ns98001.pdf
Having said that, agree that it nevertheless supports the contention that overall cost would be higher for SSNs rather than SS but respectfully disagree on the 2-3 times figures, Manpower requirements for new reactors have halved compared to older reactors (as per the 06 GAO rpt) so again I'm not convinced on the significantly higher manpower requirements (with emphasis on the "significantly").
Don't get me wrong, I'm no advocate for nuclear power subs in the Australian context. There are other reasons eg no nukes policy docking in other countries etc. Only reason for offering the counter arguments (as I did for the RAN CV discussion) is merely to establish that its not all bad as appears to be indicated.
I noted that the USN haven't done any public cost studies to compare nuke vs conventional propelled subs (although they did for the CVN and surface ships) so it would be nice if you could actually explain the source of your Virginia costings.
There's the quick look studies but the inherent issues are reflected.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06789r.pdf
Won't bother with the surface ship study cos that was done in 77/78. But from CVN rpt in 1998, agree upfront cost is higher but maintenance and operational cost was not that much different (10% more for CVN vs CV but that again is due to manpower) with overall life cycle costs = 58% more.
The appropriate caveats should be noted.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ns98001.pdf
Having said that, agree that it nevertheless supports the contention that overall cost would be higher for SSNs rather than SS but respectfully disagree on the 2-3 times figures, Manpower requirements for new reactors have halved compared to older reactors (as per the 06 GAO rpt) so again I'm not convinced on the significantly higher manpower requirements (with emphasis on the "significantly").
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Looks like Australia may procure the Mk-54 torp if the MH-60 is selected.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2010/Australia_10-55.pdf
Official brochure (Mk-54):
http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/...cuments/content/rtn_bus_ids_prod_mk54_pdf.pdf
Looks like Australia may procure the Mk-54 torp if the MH-60 is selected.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2010/Australia_10-55.pdf
Official brochure (Mk-54):
http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/...cuments/content/rtn_bus_ids_prod_mk54_pdf.pdf
Hopefully...
They're a nice little torpedo, and there is some commonality with the Mk48 ADCAP at a circuitry level.
There's more CPU power on these torpedoes than there is on some navies skimmers combat rooms..
they're no Typhoon killer, but they'll do a hell of a lot of damage. We should never have bought the MU's IMO, it just didn't make sense and cost us in integration terms and in long term logistics. It's been a while since I was able to see the real data behind them, but what I saw a few years back in the US was fairly impressive.
I'm in another offline email group which has a few ex US intel officers (china/russia/japan specialists) on the distrib list. For a number of years there has been a strong view amongst those ex officers that Japan basically has the material facilities and processing resources in place to rapidly go nuclear if pressed. the view has been that they could weaponise and go nuclear within a fortnight to a month.
I think 18hrs is optomistic
, but if you look at how quickly nations can come up with military weapons solutions in times of national crisis, then who knows?Chinas hardening stance now that she is growing confident of her power is having an impact.
Whereas a few years ago japanese military colleagues of mine were fundamentally ambivalent about the rise of china, they are now far more circumspect and some are now actively seeking change. RIMPAC etc, Talisman Saber now have far more importance to them as its assisting in learning how coalition forces work etc....
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
As mentioned in the report, Japan would have to breach the NPT in order to acquire nukes. Understand that the NPT only allows nukes for those who already had nukes. Would be inconsistent after so many decades of supporting the NPT.
Also I doubt if Japan can ignore public and international opinion on this issue. Japan is far more vulnerable to sanctions than countries like North Korea or even India/Pakistan.
Non-starter despite the report.
Not new. Japanese nuke weapons option has been on the table since the sato administration in the 60s.I'm in another offline email group which has a few ex US intel officers (china/russia/japan specialists) on the distrib list. For a number of years there has been a strong view amongst those ex officers that Japan basically has the material facilities and processing resources in place to rapidly go nuclear if pressed. the view has been that they could weaponise and go nuclear within a fortnight to a month.
I think 18hrs is optomistic
Chinas hardening stance now that she is growing confident of her power is having an impact.
Whereas a few years ago japanese military colleagues of mine were fundamentally ambivalent about the rise of china, they are now far more circumspect and some are now actively seeking change. RIMPAC etc, Talisman Saber now have far more importance to them as its assisting in learning how coalition forces work etc....
As mentioned in the report, Japan would have to breach the NPT in order to acquire nukes. Understand that the NPT only allows nukes for those who already had nukes. Would be inconsistent after so many decades of supporting the NPT.
Also I doubt if Japan can ignore public and international opinion on this issue. Japan is far more vulnerable to sanctions than countries like North Korea or even India/Pakistan.
Non-starter despite the report.
Last edited:
but its never had currency until now. in the 60's the chinese weren't overtly showing presence in japanese waters, weren't posturing outside of the normal fluff about mutually claimed territories, and weren't testing japanese sensor networks by trawling subs in sensitive areas to get a response reaction.
NPT is non binding. Japan, germany and Australia agreed to join the NPT based on the US offer to provide a nuclear umbrella in time of war. Japans current view is that the US is compromised politically by trade issues.
You'd be surprised at how attitudes are changing. Hiroshima resonates with a particular generation and is not a universal attitude, There are clear signs that younger japanese and those in the military have concerns about chinas shift in stance. they've seen how the chinese govt is quite happy to whip up anti-japanese sentiment and contrast it with their own where the govt is much more astute and mature in the way it acts in the international arena. Japan has far greater goodwill in the international community and they've never exercised the verbosity and mantra that comes out from the mainland chinese re territories and "splittists"
I'd argue that the SEA region is far more worried about an aggressive china that an aggressive japan - and a japan that has less and close to zero disputes with her SEA neighbours. eh Japan and Sth Korea have a far more mature relationship than Japan and China
weasel1962
New Member
Noted and agreed on most of the points but the whole issue needs a bit more thought.
I think it would make it more difficult to argue that NK and Iran doesn't have a right to nuke arms esp if the treatment of Japan is very different from the massive efforts directed at Iran and North Korea in the UN to get them to terminate/prevent a nuke weapons programme.
Iran/NK would then expect the UN to conduct the same treatment to Japan otherwise it would appear hypocritical. In fact, I think it could bolster Iran/NK's right to nuke weapons. So it might not be just US "lecturing" Japan but likely more concrete action.
I don't think SE Asia + Australia + EU would view a nuclearised Japan in the same light. The Pakistani/Indian conflict has different fundamentals with 3 wars between the warring entities. Japan's feud with China isn't exactly a high risk one warranting a nuclear capability.
Most would wonder that under the Japan - US mutual defence treaty, isn't the US's obligation to defend Japan from a nuclear attack by China sufficient? It wouldn't make Japan safer and may indeed spark a nuclear arms race with South Korea likely to follow (which I agree with the report).
Even Japan's internal politics unite on this issue, the consequences of the diplomatic fall-out might be a lot more challenging to manage. Its even more tricky to manage in today's geopolitical circumstance than in the 60s.
If they do go ahead, its expending a lot of political capital for very little security gains. Unlikely.
Yes, this makes a lot of sense to me. I have heard references to Jap nuke capability, some years back now, that it is like a multiple cottage industry layout, many places spread around, and when the need arises, they can bring it all together quickly.
Wouldn't the likely precursor, to admitting nukes possession, be heightened hostile press rhetoric? When that starts heating up the China threat, then it would be much easier for Jap gov to announce nuke preparedness, without getting much opposition at home. USA also wants, and is encouraging, Japan to be more involved militarily in the area.
One last thought, there is still a US base in Japan, is there not? This would lend itself to protecting Japan by default anyway, I would have supposed..?
USN has a task force based out of Yokasuka. They've also added more aegis assets to the fleet as a legacy of ramped up concerns about the NK's going silly. (ABM roles)
They also have facilities in Okinawa, but these are not naval.
Firstly, sorry Lancaster, that my reply has taken this long, I had other matters to attend to.
Yes, I understand that matters to do with defense budgeting are hugely complex, of course, and that procurement cost over runs are often caused by political interference.
Our system is not broken. There are enough 'nutbags' floating around (in society in general) with grossly simplistic views of the world and how to 'spend defence dollars' without adding you to the list.
I know our system is not broken, but, with the debacle regarding the Collins subs build, which affects the sub fleet to this day, (for instance), it clearly shows there is a huge breakdown of communication in the system, does it not?
Then there was the Sea Sprite business, another $1.2 billion lost. As I stated, I understand Gov screws things up for (I presume) your side of the purchasing/logistics chain, but this just keeps happening, huge delays, across the board in our military services, bad equipment purchases, eg soldier boots and backpacks, etc etc etc.
If this sort of incompetence, on whose ever side, was happening in the industry I worked in, that would be a total career ender right there!
By the way, I am not a "nutbag", and the criticisms I have raised here were actually raised by the same members you say I should listen to, ie, defense professionals.
I can only hope, pray, that the "system" is having a good hard and honest look at itself, and is trying to fix the problems inherent in it. Our country needs to be ready for any eventuality, and not in a token way, but in actuality whereby our men and women in active service get the best equipment and hardware cover that can be supplied. The Afghanistan revelations recently, by serving soldiers, suggest this is not happening.
So, no Lancaster, I am not assured by your statement that our nation's security needs are covered. All the evidence suggests, even anecdotally on this forum, that our forces have been let down, by successive governments, Labor and Liberal, and the bureacracy, in general, needs a good overhaul, to become more effective to stop unnecessary costs.
On that last point, I do note, after reading the official site for the AWD's, that a new approach is to be made, whereby Gov. service and contractors all have a hands on and share decision making, so another Collins breakdown is avoided. That is a good sign. I trust this approach will be seen across the board in other areas of development and purchase.
I apologise, if I appeared too much of a witch hunter, I am nothing of a sort. However, it is good to find out where people stand and gain some more insight, afterall, this is an open forum of discussion, not a gov site, and I must accept people are what they say they are. Hence, my fair minded approach.
However, I just cannot see anyone successfully defending the ridiculous mistakes made with the Collins and Sea Sprite programmes. Whomever was actually responsible for the major mistakes I hope does not have anything to do with future projects, unless the changes made to organization and communication etc (as with the AWD programme) have eliminated such systemic problems for build projects.
This is my observational opinion based on results, and I am not alone in my criticisms.
cheers,
jay
Japan has (legal, declared) stocks of plutonium sufficient for hundreds of warheads, built up through its civil nuclear programme.
No it won't. I can point to 2 ex RN nuke drivers who are joined the RAN and are now ex RAN conventional drivers and their views are that we should have nukes.
they have just as much clout. ie zero
The comments have actually been refuted by the Submarine Institute - and one of those ex sernior sirs is a member of the SIA. I know because I've met him at the last SIA meeting when we discussed these very issues.
knightrider4
Active Member
Mk 54
WASHINGTON: The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress today of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia of up to 200 MK 54 All-Up-Round Torpedoes, 179 MK 54 Flight in Air Material Kits, 10 MK 54 Exercise Sections, 10 MK 54 Exercise Fuel Tanks, 10 MK 54 Dummy Torpedoes and 6 MK 54 Ground Handling Torpedoes.
The estimated cost is $169 million.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of up to 200 MK 54 All-Up-Round Torpedoes, 179 MK 54 Flight in Air Material Kits, 10 MK 54 Exercise Sections, 10 MK 54 Exercise Fuel Tanks, 10 MK 54 Dummy Torpedoes, 6 MK 54 Ground Handling Torpedoes, support and test equipment to upgrade Intermediate Maintenance Activity to MK 54 capability, spare and repair parts, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.
Australia, one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific, contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. Australia’s efforts in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan have served U.S. national security interests.
Australia intends to use the MK 54 torpedo on the Lockheed/Sikorsky MH-60R helicopter. Australia has significant experience with modern weapons systems, particularly the MK 46 Mod 5 (SW) torpedo. The MK 54 torpedo is an upgrade of the MK 46 torpedo.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.
Does this mean the order of the MH-60R is pretty much a certainty?
Related Articles
Post a Comment
WASHINGTON: The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress today of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia of up to 200 MK 54 All-Up-Round Torpedoes, 179 MK 54 Flight in Air Material Kits, 10 MK 54 Exercise Sections, 10 MK 54 Exercise Fuel Tanks, 10 MK 54 Dummy Torpedoes and 6 MK 54 Ground Handling Torpedoes.
The estimated cost is $169 million.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of up to 200 MK 54 All-Up-Round Torpedoes, 179 MK 54 Flight in Air Material Kits, 10 MK 54 Exercise Sections, 10 MK 54 Exercise Fuel Tanks, 10 MK 54 Dummy Torpedoes, 6 MK 54 Ground Handling Torpedoes, support and test equipment to upgrade Intermediate Maintenance Activity to MK 54 capability, spare and repair parts, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.
Australia, one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific, contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. Australia’s efforts in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan have served U.S. national security interests.
Australia intends to use the MK 54 torpedo on the Lockheed/Sikorsky MH-60R helicopter. Australia has significant experience with modern weapons systems, particularly the MK 46 Mod 5 (SW) torpedo. The MK 54 torpedo is an upgrade of the MK 46 torpedo.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.
Does this mean the order of the MH-60R is pretty much a certainty?
Related Articles
- Sweden to Buy UH-60M Blackhawk Helicopters for Afghanistan
- Australia Requests MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopters
- RQ-7B SHADOW 200 Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Australia
- 24 F-16C/D Block 50/52 Aircraft for Egypt
- Australia to Buy CH-47F Chinook Helicopters
- F-16 Pilot Training for Singapore - October 8th, 2010
- M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System Upgrade for Finland - October 4th, 2010
- Thailand Requests F-16 Mid-Life Upgrade - October 4th, 2010
- Sweden to Buy UH-60M Blackhawk Helicopters for Afghanistan - October 4th, 2010
- Iraq Requests Refurbishment of M113A2 Armored Personnel Carriers - September 28th, 2010
Post a Comment
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Not in of itself. This is simoly a notification that Australia has requested the potential sale if Mk 54 torpedos to be operated potentially from MH-60R helos.
A lot of requests are made to tge US for particular arms acquistions, not all of them are followed through. Australia requested a possible acquisition of SLAM-ER a few years back. We went with JASSM instead...
I'd say the MH-60R is 'probably' the front runner for RAN's new helo, but for all the alleged 'urgency' of the acquisition, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot happening...
This decision, like all will be politically based. Not capability based. These notifications provide an interesting insight to the sort of capability we are interested in (I'm hoping to see a similiar one for Hellfire shortly too) but they are practically meaningless until Government approval is given to actually acquire said capability...
- Status