Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Well not quite correct, the US exported the F111 to Australia and at the sametime had the FB111 Strategic Bomber in service and actually sold 15 FB111s to Australia rebranded as F111Gs.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
IIRC, the article was referring to heavy long range bombers like the B-52, TU-95, and B-2. It also was discussing the unlikely sale of B-21s to Israel. Not sure if the F-111 was part of the agreement. Sorry, I forgot the site I so this info is based on my less than reliable memory.
The INF issue was also part of the discussion.
The INF issue was also part of the discussion.
China, Indonesia, Egypt, and Iraq outside of the former USSR all received the Tu-16 Badger. China still operates upgraded and improved copies of the Badger as the Xian H-6. The Tu-22 Blinder was exported to Iraq and Libya by the USSR. Tupolev are trying to export the Tu-22M Backfire but with no success so far. The only commonality between the Blinder and Backfire are the maker and designation Tu-22 which was used to disguise the fact that it was a completely new aircraft.
Given those precedents, there is no reason why the US could not sell the Australia say some B-1Bs, especially as the US has publicly stated they are no longer a strategic nuclear bomber. Whether or not the US actually would, is a sovereign political decision that they alone can only make. The RAAF received the F-111 and that was nuclear capable and arguably a strategic asset so who knows.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The agreement I was confused about is the Srart Treaty. This was signed in 2009 and apparently it may not be renewed. The bomber sales mentioned would have occurred before 2009. Thus, neither Russia or the US should be offering strategic bombers to third parties until the treaty is ended.
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf
The treaty only covers nuclear weapon capable heavy bombers. So, in principle, there would be no breach of treaty terms should America export an non-nuclear version of the B-21. Basicly lacking the weapons integration for said weapons. Maybe change the brand of coffee percolated installed too.
But the subject is moot. Australia simply can’t afford it. Here is a good piece on the need to develop a strategic economy doctrine as part of a comprehensive national security plan.
Australia's Economic Security: Is there a problem? - Australian Defence Magazine
The Australian economy has been travelling forward on inertia since Gillard took over. Issues like natural gas prices, electricity prices, rising household debt levels, leases of ports, sliding educational outcomes, etc are indicative of policy without direction. Something the article doesn’t mention is increasing scarcity of water supply relative to demand. We have reached the point of diminishing returns from immigration as a driver of growth, since from now on, increasing water costs, thus business and living costs, will cancel out increased growth.
The article then discusses global economic risks, questions local economy grow predictions and raises questions about the sustainability of defence spending.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yes, a ton of money for sure. The other article I can’t find is Israel’s inability to deliver the latest “US bunker buster”bombs which is why a large bomber would be of interest to Israel but clearly this could only happen if the US subsidized the cost.
Thanks for the link.
I don't have the answers but certainly important to look at defence capacity holistically linking the nations finances to our ability to buy and crew and service military hardware.
Our aspirations need to be realistic at all levels.
Regards S
If serious about deploying and supporting an ARG something like the point class or this vessel is needed.
That said, you would probably need 3-4 of them.
Regards,
Massive
t68
Well-Known Member
I was under the impression it wasn't going to be a commissioned vessel in the RAN, perhaps be operated like MV Sycamore or ADV Ocean Protector
At 198m is it to big to build here?
Saw my mistake to late to edit, what I meant to say was a good eventual replacement for Choules if we don't manage to get another LHD.
If the RN (or a private corporation) plans to build 2 as a Littoral Strike Ship, tacking 1 or 2 for the RAN on the end of the build would help keep costs down.
This week the Opposition leader announced plans for a “strategic merchant fleet”.
He further announced that a future government lead by him would enforce that any ship trading on the Australian coast would be manned by Australian seafarers. Further it would be privately owned.
The principle of such a fleet is supported but.......
We had such a fleet in the mid twentieth century, we had government shipbuilding subsidies but unfortunately the cost of both rendered them uneconomic or rather too expensive for taxpayers to keep supporting them.
The wages and conditions demanded by the maritime unions were exorbitant and were, and still are, the singular reason why the demise of the industry occurred. This is true for all but the most high value cargoes such as oil and gas and is the reason why the offshore industry ships can still be Australian manned.
This policy has the capacity to cost the taxpayer huge sums however voters must balance that cost against the strategic advantage and if it were ships or handouts I can assume that our entitled generations will choose the latter.
Let’s call this proposal for what it really is, the Union is demanding repayment from a future union dominated government.
He further announced that a future government lead by him would enforce that any ship trading on the Australian coast would be manned by Australian seafarers. Further it would be privately owned.
The principle of such a fleet is supported but.......
We had such a fleet in the mid twentieth century, we had government shipbuilding subsidies but unfortunately the cost of both rendered them uneconomic or rather too expensive for taxpayers to keep supporting them.
The wages and conditions demanded by the maritime unions were exorbitant and were, and still are, the singular reason why the demise of the industry occurred. This is true for all but the most high value cargoes such as oil and gas and is the reason why the offshore industry ships can still be Australian manned.
This policy has the capacity to cost the taxpayer huge sums however voters must balance that cost against the strategic advantage and if it were ships or handouts I can assume that our entitled generations will choose the latter.
Let’s call this proposal for what it really is, the Union is demanding repayment from a future union dominated government.
IMO it has same problem as the MRV HMNZS Canterbury which can't use the stern ramp in sea states greater than 2 (sub para f, p.25) which are quite low. So would not be the best value for the CoA / ADF if it is sans a well dock. Given the AO that such a vessel wearing an Aussie flag would have to operate in, I think a well dock is essential.
I think it is too big for Osborne, currently.. Pretty sure their max was well short of 200..
Techport Australia's Common User Facility (CUF), Adelaide - Ship Technology
The design is interesting, I don't think its ideal for Australia as it is and the capabilities we have and are looking for. Probably worth benchmarking against.
I think some ideas have merit, but this doesn't seem to be a particularly well thought out plan. It smells of wild pandering. We don't have the sailors or the ability to train and build up such a force from basically, scratch. They could have a more restricted look at key strategic activities and work on building a small merchant capability. Maybe look for a target. 20% Australian sailors? 40%+ from the South Pacific (trained in equiv quals)? At least you would have a chance to grow targets over time and make it manageable. There was talk about supporting pacific nations with more work Visa's for Australia, shipping is an obvious area for collaboration. Unions probably wouldn't be that happy, but you would still be growing the member base over all.
Rather than have chinese fleets and sailors fish Fiji and Tonga and PNG, locals could do that. Same with cargo. East Timor was complaining about the lack of maritime training through Navy, building a more viable pools of locals would go a long way to supporting that.
Definitely a sealift ship - not an amphibious or HADR suitable ship.
The stern ramp is going to be lowered onto a wharf.
Regards,
Massive
Is it? Can you guarantee that? By definition it's a multi role vessel and if you actually look at the video it shows vehicles including tanks transferring from the ship to mexiflote AT SEA, not alongside. So maybe rethink your statement.
So what is the intended mission of this Pacific hospital ship? Does it just cruise around the S Pacific and do a spot of medical treatment here and there, or is it intended to turn up after a natural disaster and provide aid? If the later, expect available infrastructure to be damaged. After the Tsunami hit Ache, there was no infrastructure left, for example. So it would need across the beach capabilities.
What mission scope is appropriate?
What mission scope is appropriate?
King Wally
Active Member
I agree, I'd rather paint Choules White with a big red cross and go with something like that. Across the Pacific it will probably get you onto location faster with more useful equipment. Large generators, bulldozers, trucks with supplies, Ambo Bushmasters... so much stuff you just can't chopper in.