plantagenet,

I TOLD YOU SO.

Hi Mopi

In response for your "I told you so" cry for help (above)

I'll show you part of one of my "Beware of China" articles.
________________

This is: "Embracing China involves risks for Australia" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7324 0f 5 May 2008:

"The short occupation of Canberra’s Federal Triangle by 10,000 Chinese students on April 24, 2008, probably has security services and Australians generally wondering what it all means.

Canberra is normally a quiet and highly regulated place. Most of the protest action occurred in an area of the city between the headquarters of three security bodies, that is the AFP, ASIO and the Attorney-General’s Department. Australia’s federal agents, domestic spooks and legal facilitators would have well and truly witnessed hordes of Chinese chanting pro China slogans while drowning out and physically intimidating the minorty of Tibetan and Falun Gong supporters.

Chinese marshals wearing colour coded uniforms co-ordinated their student volunteers using walkie talkies. The Age, Apri 16, 2008 reported that a student spokesman Zhang Rongan “said the Chinese embassy in Canberra ‘is organising buses, food and places to stay’ for protesters”.

Does the importance of China’s trade to Australia, and the sheer weight of Chinese numbers, allow the Chinese Embassy and Chinese students to intimidate those few in Canberra willing to stand up to China?

The answer appears to be “Yes”. Due to China’s economic importance, and rising might generally, the Government has given China a broad degree of latitude outside normal diplomatic behaviour.

China’s diplomats and non diplomatic agents appear to have pushed around Tibetan and Falun Gong supporters over the past few years without being expelled. The policy rationalisation might be that as long as it is only happening to mainly Chinese minorities it is a low counter espionage, or minor law and order, priority - basically not a Federal Government concern. But when Chinese Embassy representatives can mobilise thousands of students to saturate the streets of our capital city that Embassy should at least be seen as a problem."
_____________________________________

MORE FOR YOU TO LEARN TOMORROW Mopi

Plantagenet

As Australia appears set to waste some $225 billion on procurement of new, but obsolete-technology, submarines that will not be delivered until about 2035, and as it has been asserted that Minister Reynolds is to be replaced as Defence Minister, an update of your OLO article, 'Future submarine choices: more than a one horse race' https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16937
would appear very useful.

No NUCLEAR PROPELLED SUBS FOR AUSTRALIA THOUGH

Hi Raycom

Indeed you're right.

But I'd start by saying:

1. nuclear propelled attack submarines (SSNs), US Virginias, UK Astutes class and French Suffren-Barracudas, would cost 3 to 4 times as much to purchase, train nuclear engineers for, build land based nuclear reactors and enrichment facilities for, and then to operate those subs.

Also the US won't release any Virginia's to Australia because:

- the US Navy(USN) needs every Virginia for the USN to cover all the roles required

- to face increasing current/projected Chinese and Russian SSN production.

Virginia's and Astutes couldn't be built in Australia because of their extreme nuclear proliferation sensitivity. That is their 95+%NuclearWeaponsGradeU235 fuel reactors cannot be exported or built in Australia.

- also Virginia's are high not-for-export tech, like the F-22 fighters.

If Australia's wanted nuclear propelled subs we could only afford 4. UK and France, with their much larger economies, can only afford 6-7.

And their cost is mainly justified in defending the UK's and France's nuclear propelled ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) ie. nuclear weapons deterrent.
___________________

2. So the Attack-class conventional(diesel-electric) subs French Naval Group is helping build in Adelaide - for expected delivery in 2035 are current technology rather than "obsolete" at present.

But to avoid making them obsolete by 2035 they need 2 mature technologies Naval Group doesn't yet have:

- that is Second or Third generation Air Independent Propulsion - permitting about 20 days fully submerged operation in places like the South China Sea

and

- Batteries more advanced than Naval Group's lead-acid batteries.

Mature advanced Batteries can be charged more quickly than lead-acid and last longer.

Advanced would probably mean

- Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs). 3 Japanese submarines already have LIBs.

- or Nickel-Zinc Batteries. Which no submarine yet has. But such batteries just happen to be under development by Australia's current battery supplier, PMB Defence, see http://pmbdefence.com.au/services/engineering/new-technology

So Aussies saying "What about nuclear subs for Australia!" react poorly to "We then need to spend twice 60$Billion/year as much on defence" and "what would Australia use nuclear subs for anyway?".

Regards

Pete

Australia would be wiser to invest in satellite warfare. A single Laser zap from space could take out any crap-head on Earth !

individual,

You've been watching too much Star Trek.

BEAM UP ME SCOTTY.