Retired Admiral Peter Briggs believes that we should scrap the AUKUS submarine and buy a French one! I wouldn't think that the French would touch us with a bargepole after the ‘convert-a-nuclear sub-to-diesel’ fiasco that we pulled out of at great expense (550 million euros). and insulted the French.

The AUKUS deal is “flawed” says the Admiral.

Is there anything about our apology for a defence plan that is not flawed?

We also need 12 submarines, not 8, because we are surrounded by water: a “three ocean continent”.

We can't make enough submarines, the US won't be able to sell them to us, and Australia's submarine capability will “die with the Collins class”.

Anyway, says Briggs, the AUKUS job is too big and too expensive. We can't afford the minimum 12 vessels needed.

But, going back to the future after the most hideous stuff up, just because we are mates again with the French (according to Richard Marles)?

Depressing, is it not? Not just because we can't have any faith in the political class and bureaucrats, but because they can't even agree on how to bugger things up.

https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20241214-former-admiral-urges-australia-go-back-on-aukus-deal-buy-french-subs

First of all I want you to tell me why we need them.

WHAT IS THEIR EXACT PURPOSE?

AC

You cannot be serious.

Apart from the fact that anyone who has to ask such a silly question has slept longer than Rip Van Winkle, and the replacement of the Collins subs was mooted almost two decades ago - Labor was talking about it in 2007 - the article in question his not about the obvious reason they are needed, but a retired naval man's opinion that we should go back to France, and the reasons why.

That's the subject of this thread; not twaddle about whether we need a reliable, modern fleet of submarines, which is a given.

It was during Whitlam's turn that Australians voted against defending their Nation !

This thread is not about politics. Both sides are interested in defending Australian, or say they are. Both sides have neglected their responsibilities for decades.

This thread is a simple review of of an article. You either think the proposal in it is smart or daft.

I think that it is daft.

I also think that we will never see the AUKUS submarines, and no bugger has the slightest idea of what they are doing. It's all talk.

Hi AC,

You asked what the purpose is of the submarines?

Media releases have advised that "Australia needs
a powerful underwater presence to deter aggression
and contribute to peace and stability in the Indo-
Pacific. The AUKUS agreement will give Australia
a nuclear powered submarine capability that will
help achieve this".

"Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States
have together reached a milestone with the signing
of an agreement to enable cooperation that's
essential to Australia's capacity to safely build,
operate and maintain a conventionally armed nuclear
powered submarine capability".

This was tabled in parliament in August.

There's more at:

http://minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2024-08-12/agreement-strengthens-aukus-submarine-partnership

Having a joint defence agreement with the UK and the US
must surely make us all feel safer - and the need for taking
these precautions especially with China circling in the
region - it must be a good precaution to be prepared.

'AC You cannot be serious.'
- No, I'm actually 100% serious.
Do you think half a dozen submarines will stop a Chinese invasion force?
Will it stop an Indonesian invasion force they've got 280 million people.
Or maybe these subs are to be used to spy on our adversaries / largest trading partner China?
What can an nukeless sub do they do that a satellite can't?
Wow we can sink ships in other nations neck of the woods, why?

You really want to fight the Chinese of the colour of ink and paper the world uses for its reserve currency?

Mate, I can't even pay cash for a hamburger at Hungry Jacks, because the apps are funneling people into the cashless thing.
Our own government doesn't even respect our own currency.

Wants us to pay rent to VISA, and Microsoft, Google, Netflix, Paypal etc..
'Long live the US empire'

Our own Commonwealth bank wants to charge for branch cash withdrawls.

Also if we are at war with China, then we're already rooted, because our economy won't just be circling the drain, it will be passing through the S-bend, and that's before we even fire a single missile at anything, which will effectively place us so deep in debt fighting a war, we may as well just do a deal and say here have a million hectares n call it 'Little China down-under' it's cheaper and will save Aussie lives.

If you said we're going to have ourown nuclear deterrent, and it will be Aussie fingers on the button, and we will no longer need to be tied to US foreign policy and can remain neutral, then that would be a seperate argument.

So I ask again.
What is the EXACT purpose of the submarines?
The money is better spent on our own domestic nuclear industry.
Build, not destroy.

Not to mention we will lose that war anyway.

For the last time. This thread has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WHAT THE BLOODY SUBMARINES ARE FOR. If you don't know what they are for you have a serious problem.

This will be the last thread that I will start. I'm sick and tired of putting up a topic only to have a bunch of idiots arguing among themselves about sh.t that has nothing to do with the topic.

I'm sick of horrible people like Foxy, Paul 1405, and now Armchair Critic, a right idiot if ever there was one.

A pessimist is a person who tends to focus on the
negative aspects in situations and always expects
unfavourable outcomes - the worst.

Someone who shows little optimism and can be a real
downer for anyone else.

From their posts you can see he believes that evil
outweighs the good and that bad things are more likely
to happen.

Even in discussions that he starts - he expects people
to comply with his version of things and ad-hominem
attacks are common.

It's like a damp cloud washing over every single
situation hoping to drench other people with his
miserable comments.

Still, I blame myself for reacting. I shouldn't.
The American comedian Milton Berle - said it well:

"Why are we honouring this man?
Have we run out of human beings?"

I can't remember reading anything positive in any
of the man's posts. He washes over every sunshine
situation hoping to drench other people with his
miserable comments. What ever is eating him must be
suffering terribly.

A troubled soul - obviously.

Perhaps we should pray for him?

Nah.

Let him fizz and sputter in his own grease.

ttbn,

I'm truly sorry if I've caused offense.
- But it's a hell of a lot of money.
I don't see what they can do that satellites can't.

I don't want us to go to war with China.
I want no part of it for our country, because it's madness.

All these people who say 'If you want peace, prepare for war'
Well that's good for military contractors and Admirals,
If we can afford it, and if it gives us capabilities that actually give us an edge.

For me 'If you want peace, then make peace'
Why must we antagonise others for no benefit of our own.
Defense is different to spying for others and provocation.
The only thing we're likely to get is more trade sanctions from China that will hurt Aussie jobs.

Build out our domestic nuclear industry instead.
Power up the economy and become competitive again.
And maybe we'll actually have a country worth fighting for.
Right now were a massively overpriced country, that offers little more than service jobs.
'Useless eaters'.

What are these submarines for ?
Well if a country wanted to take over Australia they would have to send
troopships with tens of thousands of troops on board.
They would not send those ships through a large area of sea when they
had no idea where the subs were located.
That is one reason, think of more.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

France just signed a contract with The Netherlands to build 4 attack submarines. The budget to replace its aging Walrus-class submarines, including a delta to operate the future vessels over their 30-year lifespan as well as a project-risk reserve, amounts to a total of €5.65 billion.

So, if we now want to renege on the Aukus deal after having reneged on the previous French deal, and go back, hat in hand, to the French, and ask them to take us back, I’m afraid we’ll just have to arm ourselves with a good deal of patience and sit on the bench until it’s our turn once more.

Maybe we could get ScoMo to do that. He owes us at least that !

He’s only 56. He’s got plenty of time to learn to speak French fluently so that he can easily explain why he changed his mind once again – something he was not able to do last time round.

If he can't make submarines and make war, he should, at least, know how to make love – why not with the French ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kegY0P6pRGk&t=184s

.

Hi AC,

You ask; "WHAT IS THEIR EXACT PURPOSE?"

The exact purpose is we have to pay the piper. The bully boy on the block demands it. Don't you remember the school yard bully who took other kids lunch money in the name of "protection". America is Australia's school yard bully, instead of taking 50c for "protection" this bully takes billions of dollars.

It's too late for Australia, as America has decided that we are a "close friend" and as a "close friend" we are ripe for the pickings. They tell us to; "Pay up and shut up!....otherwise you could lose OUR PROTECTION, and those nasty Chinese will be down to get you!"

Baz

People too dumb to know what the submarines are for; too dumb to stick to the topic; too dumb to recognise the threat to our security; too dumb to stop voting for the same failed politicians, are too dumb to try dealing with. It's a good thing that nothing that they say here goes any further. We just have to hope real people - the so-called silent majority - do the right thing at the coming election.

In the meantime, if we keep reading the extreme crap these dumb people spew out, our mental health is at risk. We will end up as mad as they are. I have named the three main bullies to ignore. I will never again give them an opportunity to insult me. How you and other rational posters deal with these creeps is not my business; but 'sending them to Coventry' is my way. I have reach the limit of my tolerance. They no longer exist.

In the meantime, the tired old hacks in Canberra, and the people wanting to make money out of AUKUS, regard as a “milestone” the signing of a contract that “supports the joint development of build strategy, supply chain management plans and a workforce development strategy”. With the UK.

Big deal. We had a contract with France. That went well.

“Thousands of skilled jobs”. Defence is not a job creation opportunity; apart from the fact that we don't make much in Australia anymore, and we will be making less because of our expensive, unreliable electricity. No matter what rubbish is talked about nuclear vs wind and solar, nothing is as cheap and more reliable than coal. And that's not coming back, thanks to the pig-headed, poorly advised morons of the uniparty.

The last submarines built here took years after they were launched to get to the excellent vessels they turned out to be. Having another go at it would be lunacy. It is too expensive now to build anything in Australia, thanks to our energy debacle, our unions, and our Big Government rules and regulations.

Talking about mental health?

I hope that this time ttbn means what he's posted.

He's promised in the past to ignore me and yet he
continued to attack me personally. I ignored him.
But it was of no use and eventually one reacts.

Lets hope that this time I shall be left in peace
and for him - not exist.

I look forward to that very much.

Hi ttbn,
"People too dumb to know what the submarines are for"
- why don't you inform us all then?
"too dumb to stick to the topic"
- It's exactly on topic, I'm not talking about lawn care
"too dumb to recognise the threat to our security"
- Who is the threat, what are these adversaries capabilities and how do 8 submorines in 20 years neutralise this threat?
What strategic and tactical advantage do these subs give us to effectively neutralise that threat?
"too dumb to stop voting for the same failed politicians"
- The politicians themselves are dumb and not worth voting for, so in truth, who's dumb?
"It's a good thing that nothing that they say here goes any further."
- Is it? You may not be around when the country goes up in mushroom clouds and nuclear winter that kills off 6 billion + people.

"We just have to hope real people - the so-called silent majority - do the right thing at the coming election."
Who are the silent majority?
Chritians and Jews together are a minority. Look it up.

If you wish to talk about dumb, maybe you should understand the world first, otherwise it's actually pretty dumb to have an opinion at all.

"In the meantime, if we keep reading the extreme crap these dumb people spew out, our mental health is at risk."
- You're projecting, you mean YOUR mental health.
I'm concerned about Aussie lives, Aussie jobs, Aussie exports, Aussie families and a future that isn't extinguished by your march to nuclear war, because you are geopolitically illiterate.

[Cont.]
"I have named the three main bullies to ignore."
That's rich for you, but since I often act the same way I shouldn't be making the argument Foxy already has.

"I will never again give them an opportunity to insult me."
You just insulted all of us just now, consider yourself lucky I don't insult you back immediately, because when people tell me not to do something; - I'm the idiot that does so deliberately just because you said I can't.
But it's your thread, and I'm not an a-hole.

"I have reach the limit of my tolerance. They no longer exist."
- That's very woke ttbn, I thought you hated woke culture;
- But hey if you need to go hide in your safe space, knock yourself out.

I only asked one question and the bloke pops a blood vessel, self implodes with a full man-tantrum.

"Thousands of skilled jobs"
Power up our country with cheap energy first, and you'll bring back jobs and skilled workers and increased exports and we'll have the means and the money to build the submarines down the track.
So far our idiot politicians have wasted billions FOR NOTHING.
- And you say were dumb?

AUKUS: Are nuclear-powered submarines a good idea for Australia?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-05/aukus-set-to-sink/103534664

>>And, based on other defence projects, he contends there will be cost blowouts.

"Whenever [the Department of] Defence says it's going to cost you $1, always multiply it by three. And so your $368 billion is, in effect, a lifetime cost of $1 trillion," he says.

"And you can do a hell of a lot with $1 trillion."<<

You want to know what's bad for our country?
A bunch of idiots in charge who can't agree on anything.
This nation is occupied and captured anyway.

- We're not citizens we're serfs -

This notion that the submarines would be useless in a one-on-one war with China (or Indonesia for God's sake!!) utterly misunderstands the strategy here or indeed strategy ever.

Australia doesn't need the subs for our sole defence. We need to be in the western alliance and the subs are our contribution to that defence along with other items like medium range missiles.

There is no (absolutely NO) scenario where Australia fights China alone. If we fight we fight as part of a coalition of states including the US, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines (also, perhaps, India and Vietnam).

Our function in situation would be to lead the efforts to close the Straits of Malacca to Chinese shipping and that's where the subs and the medium range missiles come in.

But you don't re-arm in order to fight a war. You re-arm in order to deter an enemy from starting a war. China might stick to its 2027 timetable in which case the subs decision will have been a waste, but if they delay beyond that things will change. We are a maritime nation. We need a forceful navy. This is part of that equation.

______________________________________________________________________

Just as an historic aside and comparing great things to small. In the year 486BC the city of Athens discovered a lucrative silver mine in its territory. Discussions were held as to what do do with the windfall, the options being to distribute it to the citizenry as a gift or build a navy (a plan pushed by one of the greatest men in history -Themistocles). Many opposed the navy idea since they saw no need for it at that time. Six years later the 200 triremes built with the funds won the Battles of Salamis and saved Greece from conquest by Persia.

That's strategy.

Thanks ttbn for the thread. We obviously need advanced and effective defensive weapons if we want to defend Australia from an enemy 50x our size. It sounds like the government and the bureaucracy hasn't negotiated properly with either AUKUS or France, at this point the Australian people just need to get the government to spend the money.

I suppose that is what happens when the national capital has such a high proportion of Greens voters relative to other parts of Australia. It seems to be a conspiracy of culture. Canberra probably needs to sponsor more industry so that it is less ideologically driven. The bureaucracy seems to be purposely undermining Australia's effectiveness when it doesn't agree with it.

We certainly need other weapons as well as the submarines.

Strategic Analysis Australia points to:

. B-21 Raider Stealth bombers
. 16,000 more US marines in NT
. Military exercises with Japan
. Stronger intelligence and defence pact with India
. Permanent ADF presence in Cocos and Christmas Islands

Not to mention drones and missiles.

Our defence budget should probably be 3% of GDP.

Cut out the Old Aged Welfare and go shopping with the above list from an "expert". Our resident Captain Mainwaring who I would presume has zero military experience can man the battlements. The Old Fart's a classic.

Ah, well done mhaze;
"We need to be in the western alliance and the subs are our contribution to that defence along with other items like medium range missiles."

So your saying if America's 'The Lone Ranger';
We need to be their 'Tonto' in whatever warmongering escapades they wish to engage in?

You want us to be the piss-boy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGfXiIXTpE0
- Well, I can appreciate honesty.

So it's not really about OUR defence at all?
- But doing our bit for an upcoming Western attack that will screw our country entirely, because the USA wants to retain it's Unipolar world order, and it's Rules based order (Rules for us, not you) and have dominion over the nations it hasn't yet conquered (Russia and China, and to a lesser degree Iran and Nth Korea) rather than a multipolar world order where all countries are treated with respect decency and dignity.

You want World Government. Ok.

Your response works for me, but what I actually wanted was the specific capabilities these things bring for 'Australia's' defense.
But it isn't for Australia's defense at all really, is it?

If America wants to go to war with China, why can't they keep their subs and put their own people in them?

Why can't we be more like India and have a non-aligned foreign policy, instead off the piss-boy foreign policy?
Why can't we focus on our own interests like 'Unity in self sufficiency' and not pick sides in this foolish escapade?

I care more about my cheap Chinese imports than I do about U.S. paper bills with dollar signs on them.
What have you purchased from USA recently, do tell?
I'd like to know just exactly what we're actually fighting for.

- Feel free to lay out the pro's and con's of this future debacle -

I say it's a fools errand with no pro's whatsoever, only con's.
What's more I don't think the collective West can win.

How China’s $100B+ Shipbuilding Empire Dominates the U.S.’s | WSJ U.S. vs. China
http://youtu.be/tRVVXDyg3RY

'China has over 200 times the ship building capacity than the US'

OK, I'll go along with it under one condition, you have to name one of the subs 'Piss-boy'.

So I've been away from this site for a while, mainly because I just got tried of reading the same repeated junk opinions of many people here. And I come back and like wow! AC has actually written something that's not just pure rubbish. He is right to question a sub's purpose and to say that they not needed.

A submarine can mainly do two aggressive things: 1) Fire torpedoes, and 2) Fire missiles and do it stealthily- although with modern surveillance/detection equipment they're probably not that untraceable.
But but being able to fire torpedoes is an obsolete feature because of drones (both sea and air drone) and also missiles/rockets fired from sea-surface/land/air can achieve the same objective at a fraction of the cost of building a sub.
And being able to fire missiles is restricted because the they can carry a very limited number and cannot be resupplied fast. So unless you have nuclear missiles in your sub it's next to useless. These subs will not be carrying nukes, so AC is right- it's just a waste of resources to buy them.

In general, most of our defence force equipment is for fighting battles of the last century. Technology has marched on- the future of warfare is small AI enabled autonomous weapons. There's no point building large war machines for the land/sea/air that are required to can carry humans inside to operate when a vastly smaller and cheaper machine which doesn't need humans can do the job faster and quieter.

We're seeing this shift starting to play out right now in Ukraine- thousand dollar aerial drones are destroying million dollar tanks. Soon these drones (and also small land/sea vehicles and robots) will be AI enabled and will be able to track down and eliminate threats, both men and equipment, autonomously.

Hi AC,

"If America wants to go to war with China, why can't they keep their subs and put their own people in them?"

America has to share the killing, its good PR.

Like in Vietnam, America didn't want to been see by the rest of the world as a go it along bully boy which most certainly they were. Australia's effort in Vietnam compared to that of the Big Bully was little better than that of Swaziland, which was nil, only about 500 Australian dead. Like any bully, America has to have a collection of sycophantic arse lickers that's where Australia comes in.

Drones are vulnerable to electromagnetic interference and electromagnetic pulse affecting both communication and damage to electronic components. There are counter measures to harden devices but humans are sometimes the better option. AI can help in overcoming
attacks on communication with drones.

There is a military doctrine called C2 which includes computers, cyber, etc that is involved with defense and attack on ITC Information Technology and Communications. This has expanded a lot in recent years. See link below...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_control

"You want us to be the piss-boy?"
"You want World Government. Ok."

That's not even close to what I'm saying. The exact opposite in fact.

But obviously the subtleties of the case for the subs and of what I am saying has gone sailing over your head never to be seen again in your case. And frankly I can't be bothered continuing your education on these matters.

It's all very well to sit around and pontificate on the utility of subs in the modern world and opine that the admirals and military planners have no idea what they're doing buying 20th century tools for a 21st century war. But that significantly misunderstands the nature of modern warfare and how a new war over, say, the freedom of the seas or the freedom of democracies like Taiwan or the Philippines will play out. Drones obviously have a much larger place in the battle field than previously understood which the Russians are learning every day to their cost. But they have a specific place and a specific role which specifically DOESN'T include long range interdiction and patrolling.

There are thought to be around 500 military submarines in use around the world today with about 40% of that total being in the service or Russia, the US and China in roughly equal numbers. But obviously the admiralty of those nations have no notion of what they're doing and should be taking their lead from bloggers here. Ditto places like North Korea, Norway, Israel. All need the expertise of those here to learn how modern warfare works.

No ine knows how the next war will pan out. Or the one after that. But putting all your eggs in one (drone) basket is insane. Submarines are a multi-use tool providing both offensive and defensive capacities depending of the needs for the time.

We are a maritime nation and our economy and entire way of life is utterly dependent on the freedom of the seas and global commerce. As such we need to be able to and be seen to be able to defend our sealanes. We also need to allied with nations who equally seek to maintain the freedom of the seas - nations like the US, Japan and South Korea.

That's why we buy subs.

A Chinese “tourist” has flown a drone over HMAS Canberra, and the frigate Warramunga. The Sydney Morning Herald has a video of it. One Nation's Malcolm Roberts claims the drone was tauntingly landed on one of the ships.

No comment from the uniparty.

Makes Australian “defence” look pretty stupid.

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile used to be a saying.

In just another show of Western weakness to non-Westerners, UK’s PM, Sir Dropkick Starmer, tried to hand over the islands of Chagos to Mauritius. Mauritius has knocked the offer back, crying “more, more”.

The largest island of the archipelago, Diego Garcia, has a UK/US military base on it. President-elect Trump is not pleased with Sir Dropkick's offer, nor is anyone else who values Western security. Communist China loves the idea.

The Mauritius dissatisfaction with the deal is an opportunity for Starmer to come to his senses. But will he? There is no doubt that left wing governments cannot be trusted with very much at all: particularly defence.

Australia really needs to get its act together if it wishes to enjoy the aegis of America, while we faff around the way we are. Donald Trump is reported as being sceptical of the AUKUS deal.

Here's just one reason:

While America can, and is, buying 10 frigates for $18 billion, Australia has committed to buying 3 frigates for $27 billion.

What sort of d..k heads are running our apology for defence!

Apparently the US is reluctant to sell military high technology even to friendly allied nations for fear that it will end up in the hands of their enemies. So the sale of military equipment is a fairly subtle affair.

"Apparently the US is reluctant to sell military high technology even to friendly allied nations.."

That isn't the problem here. After all, via the '5 Eyes' process, the US already shares much of its intelligence with Australia.

The US is a little reticent about selling the subs because they think they might need them for themselves. They have limited building capacity and any sub sold to us is potentially one they don't get for their own use.

Under Trump, building capacity might expand significantly but that's not yet clear.

Of course, the fact that the US is concerned that Aussie subs may not be available for US needs puts the kibosh on idiotic claims that we will just act as their surrogates.

So in one of mhaze's posts, he's generally giving the impression that he reckons the world's militaries would be aware of the potential of using cheap, small, high-tech weapons.

Well when is comes to quadcopter aerial drones a couple of years ago (ie: the common off-the-shelf drone that you can buy at tech stores like JB-HiFi for a few hundred bucks) they weren't. We have the evidence right in front of us with the Ukraine war. Before the start of the war, no army in the world had much in the way of stockpiles of these drones nor much interest in them. They did have interest in large expensive UAVs (basically small planes without pilots) and some really small specialised drones (I saw one that was developed and sold a few years ago by some US military company that was about the size of a grasshopper. It was *extremely* expensive- I think about $100,000US from memory so probably $250,000AUD in today's money).

Then along come the Ukraine War, and guess what- the Ukrainians needed a cheaper and better way of killing and destroying things from just behind the front lines. So they innovated and tried using commercial quadcopter drones. And when I say the Ukrainians did it- it really was the Ukrainians- NOT the Ukrainian army. The army for a very long time didn't supply many of the drones nor offer much support for their use- it was done and paid for by citizens with some funding assistance from overseas private donations raised by unorthodox methods like popular Ukrainian You-Tubers asking for money from their viewers. And it's proven to be a very successful weapon- Russians soldiers and also Ukraine's (because the Russian are copying them) are living in constant fear of the buzzing noise of a drone above them.

-- continued below --

--continued from above --

So hopefully now, after quadcopters proving very effective on the battlefield, the our armies (ie: our armies = western countries + our other friends) have finally realised that we're living in the 21century. Hopefully they have started to seriously investigate the use of small, cheap machines (regardless whether they operate either on land, in/on the sea or the air), to fight wars. Because if we don't our enemies certainly will. And with the current rate of improvement in AI, very soon they will be capable of being fully autonomous. The general level of the capability of AI required to operate these machines will be common in the pubic sector well before a single one of the subs is launched. In fact, we're probably already are at the required level since we currently have autonomous cars that are driving around on public roads in the USA.

Perhaps it'd be worthwhile remembering that Ukraine is a land war and we are talking about naval issues. Sure, Ukraine took out the odd Russian vessel but almost always using land based missiles against vessels in port. Now if we can just convince our enemy to keep their navy in port for a while, we'll be okey-dokey.

There's a massive difference between dropping a hand-grenade on some hapless bloke hiding in a foxhole to dropping 200kg of munitions on a heavily armoured vessel. Again the Ukrainian drones have taken out some Russian heavy vehicles but that not the same as frigate or even a merchant vessel.

Land based drones, being a new and novel armament have been successful. Flying short distances with small explosives through wooded or hilly terrain is advantageous. Flying 1000km across open water isn't quite the same thing.

And if you think militaries all around the world aren't currently working on anti-drone strategies, then I'd like to talk to you about this bridge I have for sale.

Drones have and will have their place in the militaries of the mid-century. They will get bigger and able to travel further and more autonomously than now. And navies will react to counter that. But there remains the issue of getting them to where the action is. Flying a coupla hundred drones from Darwin to Malacca undetected is a fantasy. And they don't offer force projection.

There's a reason why navies the world over are still anxious to have subs. They know that they remain an integral part of a nation's naval preparedness. We will have drones and we will have land based missile systems. But we must also have the ability to project force into dangerous regions and stealthily keep sealanes open.

mhaze- Good point about the projection of power. Aircraft carriers are of course the classic archetypical example of naval power projection.

Yes. ever since the Battle of Midway, aircraft carriers were the main way to project power into war zones far from home base. But since the advent of things like cruise missiles and Exocets and the like, a lone aircraft carriers is really just a floating target. As always the rise of the carrier meant that nations looked to counter-measures just as the rise of drones will and has led to counter-measures.

That's why the US has carrier groups with an absolutely flotilla of frigates, cruisers, subs and destroyers surrounding and protecting the carrier. Australia can't afford that. Few countries can.

Subs are the poor man's force projector.

___________________________________________________________________

Its the 80th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge.

Nuts!

Submarines are an integral part of the nuclear triad.
There is every reason in the world to have them if you possess nuclear weapon capabilities, but we don't.

Technology is quite sophisticated these days, they can identify and detect ships just off wake patterns, they can drop sensors into the ocean to detect underwater sea traffic, and drones and missiles are getting so sophisticated, you wouldn't want to bring a carrier battle group anywhere near anything.
Let's say China invades Taiwan and Philipines tomorrow, what are we going to do about it?
(Not that I think they have any reason to do this unless the West provokes them to act.)
Send in an attack force of amphibious vehicles?
How many do you think are going to make it to shore?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Combat_Vehicle

The US will try to attack Chinas SLOC (Sea Lines Of Communication) attacking cargo ships and Chinese destroyers, while China will target all places in the asia region where non-nuclear ships can refuel.
It will be a huge debacle, but after a U.S carrier is sunk, you can bet there will be US hawks demanding a nuclear response.
(But before we even get that far, do you not think Russia and China won't have their subs shadowing any U.S fleet crossing the Pacific?}

It's the reason why China is building the Belt and Road Initiative, to diversify their trade routes, they also wish to build a second canal in Thailand, so they can bypass the choke points at Malacca Strait and in the Java sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Canal

A trillion dollars is a lot of money that might be better spent elsewhere, lets just power up our country properly with domestic nuclear energy first, then we may have a country worth saving.

Things are already going downhill fast.
We have such a big country, there's so much more we could do with it if only we could be more competitive, and had leaders with brains.

Hi CM
"Drones are vulnerable to electromagnetic interference and electromagnetic pulse affecting both communication and damage to electronic components."

Saw this a few days back.
(Not exactly sure what to make of it.)

http://x.com/TWMCLtd/status/1867175447621984714
#Russia is scared, with Z channels saying #Ukraine has successfully installed Starlink on its large attack drones.
This helps them bypass EW defences and suppression should also not be possible.

- I think I also another tweet saying they were shielding the drones with Starlink housings or something...

While on the other side
‘Neither Starlink Nor Starshield…’ Russia ‘Develops Kalinka’ That Can ‘Disrupt’ Ukraine’s Drone Edge
http://youtu.be/ciz27Zd0Zf8

So the technology is advancing on both sides quite fast.
Both sides are constantly making changes to gain an edge that counters the other side.

The submarines seem to me more like vital pieces of equipment with which to protect other nations, not necessarily Australia.
I could certainly see the benefit in being able to have a significant strike capability should China invade other nations along it's periphery.
But it's a lot of money, and we will end up targeted as well, in a war that we may not win, and which probably shouldn't be fought in the first place.
A war with China is a war against the entire world.
All of our countries now rely on China to maintain the quality of life we now enjoy.

Wow! So things have changed around here (and I've only been gone a few months). Armchair Critic is saying some sensible stuff (still there's some weird and wacky but not all he's saying is). And mhaze is not saying sensible stuff.

I would have thought mhaze, from the angle that I previously perceived that you use to write from, that you would think quadcopters would be one of the best ways to lead an attack on an aircraft carrier and its is associated group, like I do. But you don't seem to think so?

Thanks thinkabit,
I still say plenty of dumb stuff though.
Occasionally I say something worthwhile.

How This Chinese Hypersonic Fleet Killer Will Counter U.S. Navy
http://youtu.be/9TPSJ2yB1mM

Drones which receive their attack info could easily be stopped by the
usual interference generators over a very wide range of frequencies.
Problem is it stops your own data collection.
There might be quite sneaky ways around that problem.
Large radar would be near impossible on drones so some techniques just
may not work so they could not collect their own data.

I know this is an anonymous forum, but would the Admirals, Generals and assorted Field Marshal's please identify yourselves. There is Captain Mainwaring of course from Dads Army here, but since nothing has been posted in Russian I assume Field Marshal Zhukov is not with us. Does anyone know what ever happened to Zhuky? All this militaria expertise is overwhelming. BTW, did anyone here actually graduate from the Boys Scouts, maybe with a Woodchuck Badge 2nd class?

Armchair Critic- Starlink looks interesting- thanks for mentioning it. Usually you block out comms using a powerful dumb antenna. Any idiot can do it, this is why Austel regulates high power antenna's and radio frequency bands. And they will triangulate and destroy pirate signals.

When I was an adviser to the French concerning conventional (diesel-electric) submarines I had no inkling the French Attack-class project would be terminated by Australia in 2021.

Regarding Biden's 2021 offer of Virginia-class nuclear subs to Australia under AUKUS, the US will not produce enough extra Virginias to sell to Australia until the late 2040s. The US Navy (USN) is therefore advising current and future US Presidents that the USN needs all the operational Virginias it can get right through to the 2040s.

Meanwhile Australian made, UK designed, SSN-AUKUSs will likely not be available to the RAN until the late 2040s.

Why do we need nuclear subs?

Not to project conventional weapons. Nuclear propelled subs for Australia are envisaged as being possible platforms for nuclear tipped hypersonic missiles in the 2050s.

"Not to project conventional weapons. Nuclear propelled subs for Australia are envisaged as being possible platforms for nuclear tipped hypersonic missiles in the 2050s."

- Finally some truth.
We're all on a 'need to know' basis.
- And we the people don't 'need to know' the real plans.

We're just the ones expected to pay for it.

Here's Putin proposing a showdown or duel on who has the best weapons.
http://www.youtube.com/live/fxOVY0Rg0c8?t=1418

PUTIN:
"There is no chance to shoot down these Oreshnik missiles, well if those Western experts you mention think so, that Oreshnik can be shot down we suggest they and those in the West and the United States who pay them for their analysis conduct some kind of technological experiment - a high-tech Duel of the 21st century. Let them name some object let's say in Kiev, concentrate all their air defense and missile defense forces there, and we will hit it with Oreshnik and see what happens. We are ready for such an experiment. Is the other side ready?"

FYI, it was Donald Trump who backed out of the INF treaty.

President Donald J. Trump to Withdraw the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty - February 1, 2019
http://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-withdraw-united-states-intermediate-range-nuclear-forces-inf-treaty/

Thanks for the feedback Maverick.

It's not just kids the government wants to muzzle/censor/protect. They missed out on the M.A.D Bill, won the idea of censoring under 16s on social media, and now they might have had a win muzzling the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Peter Jennings, now with Strategic Analysis Australia, was ran ASTPI from 2012 to 2022, writes that there have been many attempts to muzzle the Institute that John Howard wanted to put “Defence on its mettle”

Ex-public servant a vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland, Peter Varghese, was put to work earlier in the year to review government spending on institutions working on defence matters. The ASTPI receives about $4 million a year out of an annual $40 million.

In Canberra, the review was referred to as the “kill ASTPI” review because it annoyed Labor ministers by exposing China's attempts to subvert Australia's sovereignty. The 99 year lease of the Port of Darwin, for example. ASTPI also advised against the CCP'S attempt to get control of our 5G network; did work on human rights abuses against Uighurs, the CCP’S cyber espionage. You name it, ASTPI was on it. They also changed policy thinking in Washington DC, London, Tokyo, but Canberra was embarrassed.

Defence doesn't like their “plain English” assessment of the defence budget, either.

Jennings doesn't bag all of the Varghese report, but thinks that most of his recommendations would constrain the work of ASTPI, and some of the recommendations could help the government “shut down informed and independent commentary about the most important strategic issues facing Australia”.

Jennings finishes his piece: “The bureaucracy never wanted ASPI. Now they have a government glass-jawed enough in temperament and dull enough in imagination to let the Institute die a death from slow strangulation”.

An interesting take there thinkabit.

It seems that since I don't think like he does ("like I do" ) then that means, by definition, I'm not " saying sensible stuff." Only people who agree with thinkabit are sensible, it seems.

Here's the thing about drones, be they autonomous unmanned planes or quadcopters or marine drones or whatever. They are the current flavour of the month in a very specific war fought only on land and in confined waterways between two relatively technologically unadvanced powers with limited manufacturing capacity. A serious, technologically advanced response has yet to be developed. But counter-measures will come.

The success of drones on land and confined waterways doesn't tell us anything about how it would play out in a blue water battle in the Pacific. We get an inkling of how relatively easy it is to counter drones on the open water by the way the Houthi attacks have been deflected using a relatively small force. The Israeli Iron Dome also gives a pointer here to the future.

Sending a thousand drones against a carrier group is a very different thing. It takes an heroic assumption to think that that would be successful and that that is a substitute for things like subs and vessels of the line.

Again drones have their place and that place will expand over the years. We know that US and Taiwanese planners think they could deflect a Chinese invasion by overwhelming use of drones, but again this is a restricted waterway from a home land mass. Completely different to anything Australia might be involved in.

Trumpster

You tout yourself as some kind of military genius, well lets not laugh, you're not alone, a few other right wing Forum dills think the same as you. What is the sum total of your military experience? Hummm, ZERO! Maybe watching re-runs of COMBAT is that the full extent of it?

Hi mhaze: when you say "It seems that since I don't think like he does ("like I do" ) then that means, by definition, I'm not " saying sensible stuff." Only people who agree with thinkabit are sensible, it seems."

I see that you misinterpreted what I was trying to say when I said "like I do". What I was trying to convey to you is that this is "what I believe", just so that you knew where I stood on the matter. However, I can clearly see how what I wrote could give the impression that it meant what you interpreted it to mean. Sorry about that sloppy writing.
So what I was saying was something like: "I believe that someone could lead a successful attack on a carrier group by using quadcopters. Yet you don't seem to think so, why is it that you don't think so?"

To attack a carrier group I would use a David v's Goliath strategy (ie: in spirit similar to how in the myth David confronts Goliath with a mere sling and stones). Because I feel that the last thing that the navy commanders would think someone would use to attack a carrier group are small quadcopters (for obvious reasons, such as them usually being stationed 100s of km of shore). If you wished to sink the whole fleet I would strike the radars and the anti-aircraft systems - using small bomblets like they are using with quadcopters in Ukraine. Then follow up with another more conventional attack using bigger weapons. If you wished to just disable the aircraft carrier for a while hit the catapult launch system.
The obvious tricky part is how to get the quadcopters in range since the action takes place far away from land. And for that I would use underwater gliders.
By-the-way: if you don't like the Goliath/David reference for personal reasons, you could just replace it with any of the other rehashes of the story that we have: like the original Starwars movie where Luke Skywalker destroys the Death Star.

-continued below-

-- from above --

Anyway, the real big problem with subs is that modern subs have never been tested against a major power. When was the last time any western sub directly engaged in an aggressive action against a major foreign power? We have no idea how good they'll be. And by spending *billions* on these subs we are preventing the possibility of us experimenting and diversifying with the myriad of others options that are now clearly going to materialize in the near feature, since the defense force will have no money left. Ie., we're putting all our eggs in one basket when buying these subs.

thinkabit,

Yes, I agree that "modern subs have never been tested against a major power". But that is true also for modern surface fleets, modern carrier groups and modern air forces.

It is also true for drone warfare. As I opined above, the war on the Russian steppes isn't really a proving ground for drone theory.

Everyone is 'flying' blind here. No one quite knows how a war between modern major powers might pan out, what theories will turn out to be valid and which were dead-ends.

So pumping for subs is an educated guess at best. But some educated guess has to be made and most admiralties are guessing in favour of subs.

" if you don't like the Goliath/David reference for personal reasons"

I've got no problem with it although some of our Israel-phobic contributors might. Given my own proclivities, rather than David/Goliath, I probably go with Marathon or Watling Street or even Gaugamela all of which had massively out-numbered forces triumphing.

"we're putting all our eggs in one basket when buying these subs."

Well that's not right. We are already contracted to buy large numbers of medium range missiles in a $7b deal and have allocated a further $20b for future purchases of missiles. Additionally we have an emerging locally based drone industry that might yet provide significant benefits to the ADF.

"What is the sum total of your military experience? "

Paul declares that we should only be posting about things where we have direct personal experience.

Which of course means we won't be hearing from Paul again until we start a thread on dementia wards.

Hi mhaze,
"It seems that since I don't think like he does ('like I do' ) then that means, by definition, I'm not 'saying sensible stuff'. Only people who agree with thinkabit are sensible, it seems."

It's ok mhaze, we all say silly things now and again.
Some more than others, but no-ones perfect we all learn new things.
Maybe you can try a little harder in the future?

"We get an inkling of how relatively easy it is to counter drones on the open water by the way the Houthi attacks have been deflected using a relatively small force."
- We get an inkling of your daftness whenever we fact-check.

Red-Faced U.S. Retreats? USS Abraham Lincoln Leaves Red Sea After Houthis’ Missile & Drone Blitz
http://youtu.be/K5Z9lQ4eTaU

- It's ok, you're only human, just like the rest of us.
No need to carry on every time someone posts something you disagree with.
We're still all Aussies you know.

While nobody seems to know when, or if, we will ever have replacements for the Collins submarines, on the positive side we have now had the full fleet of 72 F-35 fighter planes delivered to us.

"Sending a thousand drones against a carrier group is a very different thing. It takes an heroic assumption to think that that would be successful and that that is a substitute for things like subs and vessels of the line.

Again drones have their place and that place will expand over the years. We know that US and Taiwanese planners think they could deflect a Chinese invasion by overwhelming use of drones, but again this is a restricted waterway from a home land mass. Completely different to anything Australia might be involved in."

I think you are being incredibly naive mhaze.
Firstly the U.S. drone plan if I remember correctly, was pathetic.
It won't be a war like Ukraine, it will be a lightning strike.
China will take Taiwan in 2 weeks and the West won't be able to stop it.

U.S. carriers have a lifespan of 1 week in port and 2 weeks at sea, and personally I think that's an extremely conservative estimate.

They're not going to fire off weapons with the intention of doing superficial damage.
They'll send a 100+ decoy drones, as well as a a hundred cruise and ballistic missiles+ - to overwhelm any air defenses, (just like Iran did to Israel) then the carrier and fleet will be hit with those carrier killer hypersonics, (all of which times to hit the fleet at the same time - as well as something similar to Russian Oreshniks, not to mention the subs tailing the fleet, and the whole entire carrier fleet WILL BE GONE.
Any aircraft in the air will have to find a safe place to land, if they even have the fuel to reach a safe landing zone.
Which of course refueling facilities along Chinas periphery will be one the first things that China hits.

That's why they need the subs.
After that, mushroom clouds will miraculously start appearing over many cities.

Trumpster,

You pontificate like as if you're some kind of "expert" on militarism, I was just asking where you great storehouse of knowledge comes from. Then again BS baffles brains,is that the case with YOU!

"Yes, I agree that "modern subs have never been tested against a major power". But that is true also for modern surface fleets, modern carrier groups and modern air forces."

Its comforting to know we have have your agreement on such matters, maybe you were 'Admiral Of The Fleet"...Hummmmm?

Hi Paul,
"You tout yourself as some kind of military genius, well lets not laugh, you're not alone, a few other right wing Forum dills think the same as you. What is the sum total of your military experience? Hummm, ZERO! Maybe watching re-runs of COMBAT is that the full extent of it?"

I've no military experience, may as well be Colonel Klink, but I listen to numerous experts that do have such experience.
I'm sure Hogan's Heroes would never get airplay again now due to NAZI flags...
http://youtu.be/_fAgkXQhHTg

[I was wondering the other day how many of the old timers still here fought in WWII?
- Thank you all for your service to our country]

I certainly don't see all things coming and I certainly don't get all things right.
But I told everyone at the start of the Ukraine war, it wasn't going to go well for Ukraine, as I did the start of their great counteroffensive, and they've been on the back foot since then.
The war in Ukraine is all but lost now.

A million plus dead, (probably that many KIA on the Ukrainian side, and for what exactly?
- Stupid warmongering idiots -

Victoria Nuland gives cookies in Ukraine Maidan
http://youtu.be/fbjNJbjEy04

http://archives.news.yale.edu/v31.n23/story3.html
"Nuland describes his (her fathers) upbringing in the Bronx, New York, where he lived, near poverty, in a cramped apartment shared by his parents, Meyer and Vitsche Nudelman, his maternal grandmother and a maternal aunt. His father, an Orthodox Jew who emigrated from Bessarabia in 1907, was a garment factory worker whose chronic illness from a progressive disease -- never identified in Nuland's youth -- bore neurological and urological symptoms."

Zelensky is Jewish.
Funded by oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, also Jewish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihor_Kolomoyskyi
Zeleskys cabinet Shmyhal, Reznikov, Yermak also Jewish

Jewish: neoconservatives, think tanks, U.S congress, mainstream media, bankers
(Soros Open Society foundation and Larry Fink Blackrock)

In our countries it's 'don't ever criticise Jewish people'
In the real world it's 'Let's make war on the whole world'

Who wants a democracy cookie?
- Be careful what you wish for

Occupied and captured, we are.

AC wrote: "Maybe you can try a little harder in the future?"

I think you missed the subtleties in that mini-discussion and have got it completely arse-about. Try reading it again.

" USS Abraham Lincoln Leaves Red Sea After Houthis’ Missile & Drone Blitz"

You do this a lot. Mistaking one incident for the whole story. The Houthi attempt to close the Red Sea failed due to the naval vessels in the area. That's the story.
Of course the Houthi efforts have been even more severely curtailed in the last few days following a visit by the IAF which has basically destroyed all their port facilities.

I did rather enjoy your little fantasy tale about how a Taiwan war would pan out. Nothing do do with the facts or how the US/Taiwanese planners propose to act, but, still, a good laugh.

Especially when you compared the tactic to what Iran did to Israel. Do I need to remind you that Iran's attack was an utter failure?

______________________________________________________________

Paul: "You pontificate like as if you're some kind of "expert" on militarism".

No, it just seems like it due to your utter ignorance. My knowledge comes from study. No, no, not you type of study.... actual books and the like. It might surprise you that I wasn't at the Battle of Marathon either but consider myself an expert on it. And I haven't been to the sun but am educating myself as to the aims and proceedings of the Parker Probe.

Being completely ignorant and assuming everyone is likewise, isn't a good look.

Trumpster,

"And I (Trumpster) haven't been to the sun" but I think you have spent a lot of time out in the sun. What books have you read that makes you such an "expert" on militarism, a quick Google and I'm sure you'll have the answer to that one. I hope you are not a pretend genius.

Hi mhaze,
You can always be counted on to stuff things up.
Why have a computer if you can't use it?
The answers are right at your fingertips.
AI even helps you, all you have to do is ask the right question.
Google 'Operation to reestablish shipping in the red sea'
And you will get this:

Operation Prosperity Guardian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Prosperity_Guardian

>>On 7 August 2024, the head of United States naval efforts in the Middle East, Vice Admiral George Wikoff stated that the American and British approach to combat the Houthis in the Red sea crisis had failed to dissuade the Houthis and stop attacks on shipping through the region, arguing that strikes and defensive efforts had done little to change the Houthis' behaviour.<<

Here's an article from your Pro Israel Washinton Institute for Near East Policy.

Houthi Shipping Attacks: Patterns and Expectations for 2025
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/houthi-shipping-attacks-patterns-and-expectations-2025
>>In addition, what lies ahead in 2025 for the security of shipping lanes will depend largely on the level of Iran-U.S. tension as well as the war in Gaza. During Trump’s first term, amid tough U.S. sanctions on the Iranian oil industry, Iran was blamed for several maritime attacks in the Persian Gulf region (see The Washington Institute’s maritime incident tracker). If the next Trump administration also takes a hardline stance against Iran, retaliation can be expected in the maritime domain similar to what happened between 2018 and 2020, but this time, the Houthis will likely be even more involved.<<

They fired missiles into Tel Aviv a couple of days ago.
It's obvious to anyone paying attention that the Houthis are not dissuaded, despite Israels military responses.

You see before... people only 'thought' you were posting things that weren't very sensible.
- But you just have to start kicking and screaming every single time
Now you've just gone and shown everyone that you don't say sensible things.
You do it all the time, over and over again, why?
You know I'll make you look stupid, yet you still do it anyway.

Ansarallah have shot down 10 MQ-9's now.
http://youtu.be/VdX464rrlXM

"Well that's not right. We are already contracted to buy large numbers of medium range missiles in a $7b deal and have allocated a further $20b for future purchases of missiles."

27 billion?
Geez, now I'm the ones saying 'Streuth!'

How much did the Chinese pay for the 99 year lease on the port in Darwin?
Do you want to google it (for practice), or should I just tell you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Darwin
"In October 2015, the Chinese-owned Landbridge Group won the bid for a lease of Port Darwin. The then Country Liberal-controlled Northern Territory Government under then Chief Minister Adam Giles granted the company a 99-year lease for A$506 million."

So, we could just give the Chinese the Darwin Port and another 50+ ports of equal size, (if we have that many)
- And we'd still be saving money.

And... I keep telling you U.S weapons are useless overrated overpriced junk.

All this to make a war against our largest trading partner.
Does anyone here actually have any brains at all?
It's really no wonder this country's haddit.

Wow AC. Your really losing it. I guess your humiliation in that other thread t'other day isn't sitting well.

The Houthis didn't fire rockets into Tel Aviv. They fired at Tel Aviv and with all these Iranian created rockets they didn't get within cooee of their target.

The IDF then went in and took out all of the Houthi controlled port facilities such that they won't be getting any Iranian resupplies any time soon.

As to the Houthis attacking shipping... how many military vessels have they sunk. I'll leave you to google it but if you come up with a number greater than zero, you've been led done the garden path again.

But that's standard AC. He reads some rubbish, falls for it and then asserts that anyone who doesn't likewise fall for the rubbish is wrong.

Paul,

1. You said I was an expert. I never made any such claim. I'm not.
2. You keep using the word militarism. Look it up because I don't think you know what it means.

As to how I gained my knowledge...

When my son joined the Army Reserves and wanted to have some background knowledge on military strategy and tactics I gave him these books from my library:

Thukydides
Tacitus on Agricola
Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander
Fuller, "Nine Principles of War"
Liddell-Hart, "Strategy"
Guderain. memoirs
Halsey. life of..

I've also read any number of similar histories over the years.

I also subscribe to "Foreign Policy" magazine and the Institute for the Study of War.

"Wow AC. Your really losing it. I guess your humiliation in that other thread t'other day isn't sitting well."
- I own up to doing foolish things immediately, so I don't dig the hole any deeper when I screw up, unlike you.

"As to the Houthis attacking shipping... how many military vessels have they sunk. I'll leave you to google it but if you come up with a number greater than zero, you've been led done the garden path again."
- They never set out to target military vessels, I think they were just a bonus.
The aim was to disrupt shipping, and they've been quite successful.
They caused the Israel southern port at Eilat to go bankrupt.

AI Overview
"The Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea have had a significant impact on the global economy and Israel's economy, including:

Increased shipping costs
The cost of shipping has increased significantly, especially for routes that normally pass through the Red Sea, such as from Asia to Europe. For example, the cost to ship a 40-foot container from Shanghai to Genoa increased from about $1,400 in November 2023 to $6,300 in late January 2024.

Longer trip times
Ships are taking longer routes around Africa's Cape of Good Hope, which increases trip times from about 19 days to 31 days.

Increased insurance costs
Shipping companies have to pay almost 250 percent more for their shipping coverage.

Supply chain disruption
The attacks have disrupted global supply chains.

Impact on Israel
Israel's only Red Sea port, at Eilat, reported an 85% drop in activity. The attacks have also exacerbated the political risk of doing business in Israel.

Impact on energy prices
About one-fifth of the traffic through the Suez Canal is oil. A complete halt to oil shipments through the canal would be a significant disruption."

'Foreign Policy'
- Ah, it all makes sense now.

"They never set out to target military vessels, I think they were just a bonus. The aim was to disrupt shipping, and they've been quite successful."

But we've been talking about use of drones in military situations. Do try to keep up.

Yemen’s Houthis hit Tel Aviv, Israel, with missile
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/21/yemens-houthis-hit-israels-tel-aviv-with-projectile

Idiots arguing with idiots.

Ho ho Trumpster,

Your son joined the army reserve, so you went down to the library and got him a bunch of books on military strategy and tactics....okay. When my son joined the School cadets, a little boys version of the army reserve, I just went out and bought him a howitzer and 50 rounds of live ammo, and told him to go practice on the neighbourhood. Each to his own.

People killing other people by state sanctioned murder, should look up the meaning of the word "DEFENCE".

Yes Paul,

We can look at what happened at the Christmas festival in Germany, a man;
(A Saudi Arabian who was a devout supporter of Israel I may add)
We can say yes terrorism is bad, many people can be impacted by others with a terrorist mindset.

But what the hell do we do with an entire state that acts like that?

Do you want to know what 'terrorism' actually is?
- 'Violence against civilians for political purposes'

At least I'm smart enough to know what it actually is.

If anyone was too stupid to see that's what Israel was doing in Gaza, then I don't know how they can't see that's exactly what they were doing in Lebanon. Hezbollah, was forced to stop its attacks in defense of the Palestinians because it wasn't popular for Hezbollah, also a political party - to continue while Israel was deliberately bombing civilians, so the terrorism was rewarded.

Some people in this forum are quite vile and disgusting in their opinions.
(I'm sure they think the exact same thing about me)
That terrorist behavior is perfectly acceptable when it's done for the side they support, but will call anyone else out for any minor infraction.

And Israel has been acting this way for 80+ years, their modern state was founded on this behavior.
War and death everywhere, but no-ones allowed to criticise.

'idiots arguing with idiots'
Well your probably twice my age ttbn
There's still room for improvement for me.
What's your excuse, whatever happened to 'older and wiser'?

Victim of your own clueless blinkers-on bias.

Hi AC,

"But what the hell do we do with an entire state that acts like that?" That's a bloody good question. We considered Germany 1939-45, an extreme terrorist state led by a fanatical Nazi regime. Following a war that saw 60 million dead, we instigated regime change, rather badly I must add. The geo-political state of affairs as East and West vied for dominance in Europe and ultimately the World at the time didn't allow for a smooth transition to a totally free and peaceful German (European) society.

Yemen’s Houthis claim hypersonic missile attack against Israel
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/16/yemens-houthis-claim-hypersonic-missile-attack-against-israel

A progress report on hypersonics—doubtful US weapons for the Western Pacific
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/a-progress-report-on-hypersonics-doubtful-us-weapons-for-the-western-pacific/
A progress report on hypersonics—doubtful US weapons for the Western PacificIt is expected to cost $50 million per round, but most of the life-cycle cost of such a large weapon goes into the platform that moves and protects it. Because the Conventional Prompt Strike weapon is too large for standard vertical launch system tubes, the US Navy is putting it on its three Zumwalt-class destroyers, replacing the two 155 mm guns (for which the Navy never procured ammunition). Each of these 15,900-tonne ships would carry just 12 missiles. Nine of the ten Block V Virginia-class attack submarines, priced at $4.3 billion each, will also be able to carry 12.

50 million per round?

1 trillion for U.S. submarines? Let's say 368 bln as claimed
In AUD shouldn't that be about 50 Virginian class submarines?

US warplane shot down in Red Sea 'friendly fire' incident
http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj30zk1jnmno

Yemeni Armed Forces: WE SHOT DOWN AN F-18 FIGHTER JET
http://x.com/warfareanalysis/status/1870840156040855888

•We thwarted an American-British attack on our country and targeted the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman and several of its destroyers as the aggressive assault began last night.
•We carried out the counter-operation with 8 cruise missiles and 17 drones.
•During the operation, we shot down an F-18 fighter jet, forcing most of the hostile warplanes to leave Yemeni airspace for international waters over the Red Sea to defend the carrier under attack.
•The targeted aircraft carrier withdrew from its previous position toward the northern Red Sea after being subjected to multiple strikes by the missile force, naval forces, and unmanned aerial forces.

- Seriously if the U.S.cant even deal with the Houthis, then we are probably better off not getting into a war in the first place
- It will send us broke, and we will lose.

"so you went down to the library and got him a bunch of books on military strategy"

No Paul, I gave him the books from MY library ie I'd already read and was familiar with these books.

Do try to keep up. But with comprehension skills this bad, perhaps we have an understanding why Paul is so ill-informed.

Let's face facts.

These stupid submarines are going to spend more time outside of our territorial waters than they will within them.

Which means that by default they'll primarily be used for provoking other countries into a war, rather than spent inside our waters defending our country from a war.

We are not the worlds policeman.
Other nations conflicts and internal affairs are neither our business or our problem.

Trumpster, Happy New Year,

I'm glad you are so fascinated with killing people, militarism is nothing more than legalized murder. Your young bloke, seems he's chip off the old block as well.

Armchair Critic- I believe you would benefit from listening to the following...

http://militaryhistorypodcast.blogspot.com/

George Hageman is a little bit "Paleo Democrat" but presents the material in a fairly objective manner. Probably because he reads speeches from submissions. A lot of the podcasts (over 100) were produced and read when he was in his teens- but you wouldn't know it. His two part essay on "Philosophy of war- Why we fight" is excellent.

http://militaryhistorypodcast.blogspot.com/2008/03/philosophy-of-war-1.html

http://militaryhistorypodcast.blogspot.com/2008/04/philosophy-of-war-2.html

He has many other essays including Propaganda, DARPA, others.

China’s 6th-Gen Fighter || F-36 vs. F-22 & F-35 || The Ultimate Battle for Air Supremacy
http://youtu.be/xFJtQZ9-XRw

Russia and China have already won the arms race.
Going to war with them would be futile.

They already have missile and air defense tenchnology which the west can't match, as well as modern nuclear weapons, and now China has a 6th generation fighter.

Russia and China already have the best military technology, and there's no way the west can match their industrial capacity, in speed of manufacturing ships and missiles.

Embrace the multipolar world, or face nuclear war.
Like it or not, these are the facts.

The Wests military commanders think a war can be won.
These people who only care about getting more money from us to build a military defense which is already obsolete, need a serious reality check.

Armchair Critic said "Embrace the multipolar world, or face nuclear war"

A- I believe that this is what is known as a false binary fallacy- even if he is right in his assertion that China has the superior weaponry. But Armchair Critic is right in that it presents an unhappy compromise at least in the short term. How do the politician's get the public to accept austerity measures to fight, in a fragmented society that has been corrupted by Maoist Marxism and it's distribution channels, creating a parallel parasitic governing structure within western nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Sometimes you have to fight for what is right, even if the future looks bleak.

After WWII the west had better politicians, many had a military background, this probably was the reason for such a long period of relative world stability. Many people understood the relationship between "Other Rank's and Officer's", society was cohesive and trusted each other under common belief and culture, rather than fragmented and mistrusting and nihilistic.

It's taken one hundred years for Marxism to be ready to attack western society openly.

This parallel parasitic government includes a powerful academic aristocracy that trains societies management infrastructure, informs and directs policy, and leads propaganda in the media. I'm sure that the Woke Maoist Marxist Academic Aristocracy has other nefarious societal functions within the west.

To root out the enormously powerful parallel governing Academic Aristocracy will require a still greater power- there will presumably be a lot of civilian casualties and collateral damage.

This is the problem with creating organisations that are "too big to fail".

Hopefully the damage can be limited to people losing their jobs rather than losing their lives, but... dead men tell no tales.

Here is my 'false binary' we have a choice between 1. Maoist Marxism and one thousand years of world authoritarianism OR 2. fight it in a internecine war.

The Mongol people were plagued by internecine conflict until Genghis Khan unified them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

We need to warn our young about the dangers of communist authoritarianism to stop it's spread in our society... say "never again to Marxism"

Armchair Critic said "The Wests military commanders think a war can be won.
These people who only care about getting more money from us to build a military defense which is already obsolete, need a serious reality check."

A- Technology has changed the nature of warfare in many ways. There was a document that was attributed to the Maoist's titled "Total War" or similar that I read twenty years ago. We need to trust (and often I doubt it) that our institutions are serving our nation, rather than the Maoist's. Individuals and groups that have betrayed our trust and are working as Maoist agents within institutions, or even as institutions, need to be identified and managed. Some are more difficult to manage than others. Perhaps even grass root organisations have been compromised by Maoist elements. As they say- there are spies everywhere

In the famous treatise "The Art Of War" attributed to Sun Tzu it advises that a nation shouldn't avoid using spies and assassin's because they can save many lives by avoiding the deaths caused in battle. From memory the mathematics of war states that 10% of soldiers die in each battle. In a war of 100 Million that means 10 million men. A third world war will involve billions.

But as Trotsky implied, for those whose only value is authoritarian power, billions of dead mean little. Paradoxically, this is why we need to risk the billions. Authoritarian's hiding behind the innocent, nothing new.

In one of the movies on Caesar, Cleopatra says "Rome is masculine, Egypt is feminine, Sun and Moon".

It reminds me that in tribal villages the mother is the dictator of the children, and the children are completely dependent. There is some hierarchy amongst the women but position is somewhat pre-ordained based on age. Whereas the men hunting is more like a military organisation where there are individual and group hierarchical capabilities. Position of men within the hunting party is determined more on skills.

It reminds me of the differences between Western and Asian mindsets. Perhaps between Traditionalism and Capitalism and Marxism. Who is the masculine and who is the feminine?

As women age they apparently act more like men and their hormones change.

But note that China is happy to promote instability in the West while having a contradictory policy at home.

Hi CM,
While I'm not very cluey on Marxism.
(And if you want to send my some basic videos that can help me get up to speed on the topic, please do)

I look at your 'false binary';

"Here is my 'false binary' we have a choice between 1. Maoist Marxism and one thousand years of world authoritarianism OR 2. fight it in a internecine war."

Your opening paragraph in your reply identified "creating a parallel parasitic governing structure within western nations", for that you identified Maoist Marxism - "in a fragmented society that has been corrupted by Maoist Marxism and it's distribution channels" as the cause.

And I think to myself, what makes you think it's China promoting THIS Marxist ideology in the West?

I don't necessarily think these woke university professors are agents of China, but more to the point they are agents of a Western Marxist ideology.

In any case you stated our government is already corrupted by Marxism, doesn't that then essentially mean that it's Marxism V's Marxism, and that it doesn't matter either way, based on your response?

Me personally, I have my own refined beliefs on things, and I'm always open to changing my opinion based on new info, but me personally, I think the best society we could have is one that is neither completely capitalist or completely socialist, but contains aspects of both.

Let me give you an example.
I believe governments should provide a basic level of education and healthcare to all its citizens, a socialist base level if you will, and a higher quality level of education and healthcare - a capitalist level, for those who can afford it.
(I also think the same system should apply to employment)
A base level job for everyone, doing things to help the government save money as a socialist base level job, and regular jobs by regular employers in a capitalist system.

You've raised some interesting points Armchair Critic.

Perhaps I need to revisit things reviewing my definitions.
Some say that there are different types of communism Marxism being one. Classic Fascism derived from Hegel also includes many of the elements of communism.

Often people will seek power and they see Marxism as a way to achieve it. Some would say that authoritarianism is a feature in Marxism rather than an outlier.

According to some like Bob Whittacker- Marxism is very similar to Capitalism but it differs in who controls the system Academics vs Business people. They are both industrialist systems based on 'materialism' and are in a sense liberal and believe in continuous growth.

I believe that Marxism is essentially an evolution of the Asian governing model that Machiavelli refers to in the prince. Nietzsche approaches the Asian governing model "elephant" from a different direction when he talks about the priestly vs knightly codes (see Jeffrey Kaplan on Genealogy Of Morals).

Marxist's like to talk as if western rulers don't care about the people, in order to legitimize themselves, and their class warfare.

Victoria and Albert promoted duplex housing as a way of creating better living conditions for those in the lower social quartile. This predates modern Marxism. The problem of lower quartile living standards is a problem for rulers due to the issue "they're poor because they're poor".

Because they're poor they have a poor understanding of the world, of economics, of politics, of engineering, etc which means they stay poor. Because they're poor they can't send their children to school which means they are inter-generationally poor. One of the reasons for poverty is a lack of self control or even knowing what they should be controlling

Marxism advocates seizing the means of production as a solution, but your just giving the power to a different "gang"- probably less capable of running things efficiently than the original ones. This makes the people poorer, but the Marxist's don't care, because the intent was to seize power. Hence Marxist's don't love the poor they hate the rich.

Anyway, I don't think I answered your question well... perhaps no one does... but I'll have another go later.

Essentially the battle between Capitalism and Marxism seems to be a battle between the west and asia as it has always been.

Capitalism believes that in order to have a better life you need to increase the size of the pie.

Marxism says that the pie is going to the wrong people, not because they want to give it to the right people, but to take it for themselves.

There are pie thieves everywhere, but if the pie gets bigger, at least those in the bottom quartile get some pie, even if they waste most of it.

Marxist's want scarcity because they have control

H CM,
I started watching a video about Marxism last light, from a bloke a don't mind too much, - he is a Marxist economist Richard Wolff
http://youtu.be/eU-AkeOyiO
It's a 2 hr video, but I'll slowly work my way through it.

I also watched a video which mentioned Zbigniew Brzezinski and 'techocrats'
He talks about weaponising identity politics.
I actually have the book somewhere that is spoken about.
'The Grand Chessboard', I'll have to try and find it and read it.

Please watch this (skip to the second half of the video):
http://www.youtube.com/live/nB68hZCiQ4U
Alastair Crooke : Imperial Hubris in Syria

You may also hear the words 'Total War' you earlier mentioned.

And don't forget it's westerners that want World Government.

Zbigniew Brzezinski
"We cannot leap into world government through one quick step... The precondition for eventual and genuine globalization is progressive regionalization because by that we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg
"He gained some notice in a February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in which he said, "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

The Multipolar World is pushback aainst the U.S. lead Unipolar World Order.

BRICS Success in 2024 Proves We're Living in a MULTIPOLAR WORLD
http://youtu.be/EgWHlUnQACU

Alastair Crooke- West has been compromised by non-Traditional ideology.

Crooke throws a lot of terminology around. He's an interesting guy. See my amateur breakdown of some of the concepts.

In a sense Managerialism, Corporatism, Technocracy is code for Marxism. On the other hand identarianism is code for Traditionalism and Anti-Liberalism- it defines two points on a spectrum in a sense.

Adam Curtis describes corporatism as separating the role of the owner from the manager within companies, creating an additional layer of bureaucracy, similar to James Burham's Managerialism. This has a side benefit for academics in creating a demand for university educated managers and positioning academia within wealth structures.

There is a difference between maintaining ethnic identity and identity warfare and identity expansionism and identity territorialism, but as is known in democracy if an outlet to express community and act on community needs isn't provided, the only way to change the regime is by war. There are those that engage in proxy war through identity but obviously most identities want to ensure their own survival, rather than allow their identity to be destroyed through genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

Before the term technocracy was coined, technocratic or quasi-technocratic ideas involving governance by technical experts were promoted by various individuals, most notably early socialist theorists such as Henri de Saint-Simon.

Arguably, the Platonic idea of philosopher-kings represents a sort of technocracy in which the state is run by those with specialist knowledge, in this case, knowledge of the Good rather than scientific knowledge.

The former government of the Soviet Union has been referred to as a technocracy.[22] Soviet leaders like Leonid Brezhnev often had a technical background. In 1986, 89% of Politburo members were engineers.

Several governments in European parliamentary democracies have been labelled 'technocratic' based on the participation of unelected experts ('technocrats') in prominent positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy#Critiques

In a 2022 article published in Boston Review, political scientist Matthew Cole highlights two problems with technocracy: that it creates "unjust concentrations of power" and relies on a "flawed theory of knowledge".[58] With respect to the first point, Cole argues that technocracy excludes citizens from policy-making processes while advantaging elites. With respect to the second, he argues that the value of expertise is overestimated in technocratic systems, and points to an alternative concept of "smart democracy" which enlists the knowledge of ordinary citizens.

The insurmountable problem with Marxism is that it collapses under the weight of the bureaucracy needed to run literally EVERYTHING !

Posted by Bezza-

"The insurmountable problem with Marxism is that it collapses under the weight of the bureaucracy needed to run literally EVERYTHING !"

A- Thanks Bezza.

Here's your 'North Koreans fighting in Ukraine'
http://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/1875233862714061293
BRUTAL: The Russian Yakut tells the story of his melee encounter!
He fought him off and took back the knife:
“I took the shard and stuck it in his eye, so he let go of the knife!”

You don't think Russia shares a border with North Korea?
You don't think some Russians look like North Koreans?

Yakuts and Buryats. Look it up.
How many of you can tell when the media is lying to you?
My guess not many, they're quite experienced in fooling you.

Perhaps Russian's and Korean's and Mongolian's are Steppe Tribes.