While we are at it transfer the Cape Class Patrol boats to the Border Force then get corvettes for offshore patrol work.

Mogami is designed specifically for the gray zone challenges we will experience in the future…..obvious choice.

@boredatsea

Ай бұрын

Or is it, was designed to act as a escort for the Kongo class destroyer, these ships do not have a great range but do have the firepower, a bid difference in the size of Japan and the area of operations for the RAN.

We need ships that have 96 or more VLS go hard or go home.

@pkd6369

28 күн бұрын

hello marles

I believe that it is in Australia's best interest to go with the HHI Chungnam Class for a number of reasons. It is a regional option already built and undergoing pre-acceptance trials with the South Korean Navy. Australia has been working on building closer defence and economic ties with South Korea and this would certainly help that quest. The Koreans have proven that they are very good at what they do and would probably work very quickly with the RAN to integrate the Australian specific sensors and systems. Build time for the first Chungnam class frigate was around 12 months - which would mean a rapid delivery path for the RAN - for at least the first 3 frigates. Perhaps the 3 - 5 years from design finalisation/contract signing and construction of the first 3 frigates would allow Australia sufficient time to prepare adequate facilities to commence the build of the final 8 frigates locally. I do not think Australia is capable of matching SK's build times but if HHI were to oversee the process maybe build time could be reduced.

by the time we get the ship ,it will be out of date minister Marles will be in opposition or retired and the navy boffins gone ,to much GRAVYin the NAVY

The Imperative for an Australian Nuclear Deterrent in the Face of China's Existential Threat. Australia's strategic security landscape is increasingly fraught with challenges that pose an existential threat to its sovereignty. Foremost among these is China's rising military might, whose expansionist policies and aggressive posturing in the Indo-Pacific region have raised alarms about Australia's future stability and security. Given the current state of Australia's defence capabilities, the acquisition of nuclear weapons emerges as a crucial strategy to deter potential aggression and ensure national survival. Strategic Vulnerabilities and Defense Shortcomings: - Australia boasts a vast and sparsely populated coastline stretching over 25,000 kilometres, presenting a formidable challenge for defence and surveillance. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is under-equipped to secure this extensive border against a superior military force like China. Key shortcomings include: 1. Insufficient Defense Expenditure: Australia's defence budget, while significant, is spread thin across multiple domains, resulting in a lack of advanced and comprehensive land, sea, and air deterrents. The current expenditure levels are inadequate to match the rapid military advancements seen in China. 2. Manpower Constraints: The ADF is experiencing its lowest manpower levels since World War II. This limited personnel pool hampers Australia's ability to project power and sustain prolonged defensive operations, particularly against a numerically superior foe. This is evidenced by the new Australian Foreign Legion forecast to boost recruit numbers. 3. Technological and Capability Gaps: The ADF lacks the advanced technological edge and integrated defence systems to effectively counter modern threats. This includes deficits in missile defence, cyber capabilities, and strategic mobility. The Case for a Nuclear Deterrent. In the face of these challenges, nuclear weapons offer a potent solution that can offset conventional military disadvantages and provide a credible deterrent against existential threats. The strategic rationale for Australia to pursue nuclear armament includes: 1. Deterrence Against Superior Forces: Nuclear weapons serve as a powerful deterrent, compelling any potential aggressor to reconsider the risks of a military incursion. The mere presence of a credible nuclear arsenal can induce hesitation and strategic caution in adversaries, including China. 2. Force Multiplier: A nuclear capability would act as a force multiplier, significantly enhancing Australia’s defensive posture without needing proportional increases in conventional forces. This would enable Australia to maintain a more balanced and sustainable defence budget. 3. Sovereignty and Autonomy: Possessing nuclear weapons would enhance Australia’s strategic autonomy, reducing dependence on allied support in times of crisis and enabling more decisive and independent defence policies. 4. Geopolitical Stability: A nuclear-armed Australia would contribute to regional stability by establishing a balance of power. This could deter China's direct aggression, coercive tactics, and geopolitical maneuvering. Conclusion. In a rapidly evolving security environment, the acquisition of nuclear weapons presents a compelling strategic imperative for Australia. Faced with China's overwhelming military superiority and constrained by current defence capabilities, Australia must consider a nuclear deterrent to secure its sovereignty, safeguard its vast coastline, and ensure national survival. By developing a credible nuclear arsenal, Australia can transform its strategic landscape, compelling any potential aggressor to think twice before undertaking any kinetic actions against the nation. Australia needs to grow up.

Mekong 200

@shanehansen3705

Ай бұрын

meko but yes it's a new version of the Anzac frigates and already in use elsewhere though the south Koreans are making some damm good stuff now days also

Meko A-210

@boredatsea

Ай бұрын

The Meko A21 is the obvious choice as it seems to be an evolution of the Meko 200 (ANZAC)

@RayRay79

Ай бұрын

@@boredatsea also it’s capable of up to 32 vls and directed energy weapons (laser)

@jasonmessenger4566

Ай бұрын

Yes,if they can build them quick enough, hopefully we choose the Meko 300

Very dark days indeed. That said the only way through them is forward. We, your allies will be there with you. ❤from 🇦🇺🦘

So long as Spain isn’t involved there’s a chance this might come off.

@iatsd

Ай бұрын

The real problem will be the Australian built ones. They will all be over budget, over weight, and over time on delivery, just as everything else Australia builds is. It is impossible for Australian industry to deliver a quality product, on time, and within budget. They haven't managed it in decades. Hell, they couldn't even manage to make MREs in the early 2000's and had to outsource them to NZ after Australian industry screwed up even that.

@seanlander9321

Ай бұрын

@@iatsd Twaddle. Australia is the most reliable ship builder America has. The constant problems in Australian military ship building are Europeans who have never delivered, not once.

@iatsd

Ай бұрын

@@seanlander9321 You don't appear to know anything about Australian military production and how much trash it is. The Collins class? Late. Wrong bow fitted. And over budget. The ANZACs. Late. Over budget. The Australian built ones were ALL built out of spec such that the Australian-built hulls were ALL too large AND too small (variously) for the New Zealand-built upper/superstructures. The Australian builders also forgot to test the turbines from the American suppliers, so 3 of the ships were fitted with faulty engines and had to be refitted/rebuilt straight out of the docks. The 105mm Light Guns were built out of spec so they were 300kg overweight and even then they needed the breeches replacing on the first 250 guns built when it was discovered they weren't up to spec and were prone to catestrohphic failure when firing supercharges. The 1st production series of Steyrs were all built out of spec. The entire first batch of 5000 rifles sold to New Zealand were returned to be remanufactured because they all had faulty firing pins, and furniture that crakced in the cold because the Australian subcontractor had substituted an inferior grade of plastic in order to make more money on the contract. Australian MRE contract in 2000 and 2010 was cancelled after the Australian supplier couldn't produce the meals at the contracted cost and couldn't deliver them sterile. Those contracts were taken over by a New Zealand supplier who did it for a lower price, at better quality, and on time. The list just goes on and on (and on and on and on). Australian made equipment is simply crap.

@seanlander9321

Ай бұрын

@@iatsd Sumply put, you haven’t a clue. There is one country permitted to build warships for America, that’s Australia because no other can match them. There’s one country permitted by the Americans to manufacture HIMARS and that’s Australia, because no one else is trusted. There’s one country the Germans have turned to for building their armour and that’s Australia. I could go on, but you’re too clueless to understand the threat to Australia’s defence industries from foreigners.

@iatsd

Ай бұрын

@@seanlander9321 oh, I get it now: you're delusional. America has bought ships and planes from several countries. Permitted to build himars? Your think getting a licence is special? You do understand how many licenses the US has granted for weapons to other nations, right? The Germans bought Boxers? You think that is amazing? Boxer is conceptually no different from Saxon, a vehicle from the 1960's. More to the point, while you've claimed I'm mistaken about what I said, you've done exactly NOTHING to address even a single point I made. Getting a licence to build himars says NOTHING about the inability of Australian industry to build to spec or cost or on time. They've had licenses to build all sorts of things AND THEY'VE FVCKED IT UP. They've built things for other countries for decades AND THEY'VE FVCKED IT UP. That's the point. Try addressing it.

Well that told me nothing

Type 31 all day long ;)

THE FREMM NOT ON THE SHORTLIST??? Oz could have bought some currently building in Italy for almost immediate delivery. It is good enough to be selected by the USN. Hopefully one of the short-llsted Zero Change will be imminently selected. Given excessively slow German build times, perhaps don't select a German ship.

@iatsd

Ай бұрын

Poor value for money - American ships are seldom selected because of al the strings that come with them, the slow build, and the excessive cost. This shouldn't be news to anyone.

@boredatsea

Ай бұрын

Have read in other Defence articles that the FREMM might have good sea handling in the Med , but what about the Indian, the Southern and the Pacific in the midst of a East Coast Low weather system, can it handle a 10m swell????