The subs will only be of any use if equipped with nuclear headed missiles, & then more use to contain China than defend us. Still better that than the nothing we have right now.

A host of nuclear headed cruise & ICBM missiles lining our coast, & a heavy presence of missile interception batteries would be a better investment for us for our defense, but wouldn't do much to deter China. Unless we include the China deterrent we would not get access to the technology. It would take even longer to develop our own.

A better defense would be to develop our extensive oil deposits, & build an adequate oil refinery industry, so we actually had fuel in any future hostilities. Subs missiles & all the rest are not much use if we can't get food to the population. Perhaps we would be better off building steam trains than importing trucks.

I wonder if we could actually build steam locomotives today?

Yes ttbn, you would think the bloke who gave us 17% interest rates would shut up & slink away quietly, rather than tell us what to do.

Australia doesn't really need a Navy, just coastal defence stations with missile launching facilities.

A US nuclear submarine docked at the Sterling naval base in Perth today. It will be here for some time for training etc. This is reported as the start of a rotation of US and UK subs in Australian waters.

Hi Indy,

Good to see you talking sense.

"Australia doesn't really need a Navy, just coastal defence stations with missile launching facilities."

Although I am opposed to war in all its forms, I agree, in a practical sense, Australia must have a DEFENCE capability, and I emphasise DEFENCE, and not present others with a hostile ATTACK capability. Its my belief that short of purchasing a "battleship" these submarines represent a hostile act on Americas part, sorry Australia's part, if indeed they do eventually arrive in the year 2040 or 50 could be 60, maybe never, at a cost of one trillion dollars, maybe more, we should write the Yanks a blank cheque.

I know Admiral Brassbottom down there at Navy HQ loves those big boys toys. The Admiral would also love a battleship even more, flag ship and all that pomp. With a battleship he could stand on the bridge and give the victory salute as he sails triumphantly up the Yangtze River with Chairman Xi hanging from the yardarm, do battle ships actually have a yardarm, Hassy? anybody know? never mind, we'll install one just for the occasion.

Off course our battleship will be nuclear powered, that is if President Joe wants to sell us the technology!

p/s Is there any truth to the rumour that Australia's nuk subs are going to be built in that great US state of Wyoming, how I love the deep south, and will be sailing directly to Aussie via, Alaska, from that great US state? The fleet will be under the command of US Admiral J.P "Dipsh!t" Jones, with our own Admiral Brassbottom, second in command!

Indyvidual

How embarrassing for you to get an endorsement like that piece of dog's vomit. I can't see why you would say that we don’t need a navy, but getting the approval of the site lunatic is definitely not a good look.

ttbn,

You can call me a 'lunatic" but I'm not the silly mug who joined a way out far right political party, that scored zero percent at the election. During the "campaign" the parties "fuhrer" was jet setting around the country side first class, staying in five star digs, and eating at the poshest of restaurants, all at the party mugs expense. The party then promptly shut up shop, leaving the mugs out of pocket, and nothing to do than cry in their beer!