The are constant jibes against the regionally superior submarines France is building for Australia.

The tax paying public, clickbait journos and Canberra thinktank "Experts" know too little, too early.

The future is a big gig - more dynamic than meets one eye.

What is the point of this post?

Do you not know ttbn

That the only way for Australia to move up to nuclear subs (SSNs) in the quickest possible time (the 2040s) is to make down payments to the French via the conventional sub scheme.

This is what Australia is doing.

No one else will offer Australia SSNs.

"Why master?" you may well ask?

Well Pete. Nothing in your 3 line post said that. But, who told you that there was any likelihood of a shift to nuclear subs and, if there was, why wouldn't they buy them now instead of farting around having nuclear subs converted to diesel, and waiting for them until 2050 or some such ridiculous time?

TTBN at last someone has come out for a good reason to buy French!
The reason is that we will be so frightened of China that we will either have to surrender and leave our houses to the the Chinese population or go nuclear.
My bet is the current leadership would sell their own children on the streets of St Kilda to save their own skins so surrender it is.

Well said JBowyer

And as for you ttbn.

The expert, Gregor Ferguson, writing at ASPI Strategist, 22 July 2021 points out how hard it would be for Aus to currently buy nuclear subs. See http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/buying-military-hardware-from-the-us-wish-list-or-shopping-list/
___________________________

A superior conventional sub bought from France's Naval Group is the only way for Australia to go, CURRENTLY.

Australian interests are tied up Very significantly with the fact that only France builds a mix of Western Conventional AND Nuclear subs.

If Australia wants to buy a nuclear sub the US and UK won't sell us one - the US's and UK's bomb grade HEU reactor situations I'll explain later.

Regards

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/

Gregor Ferguson sounds like a pessimist to me, and while he might know more than I do, his description at the bottom of the article he wrote doesn't indicate that he is anyone a government would necessarily listen to.

But he has the right end of the stick in regard to the stupid ban on a nuclear capability our idiotic politicians have deliberately brought about; which, of course still doesn't excuse the French fiasco, which is an albatross around our necks, brought about by a Prime Minister who is history to prop up the seat of an SA politician who is also history. Defence has been just a job creation scheme to the morons in Canberra, and I don't think that any of them can be relied on to defend Australia, with submarines or anything else.

We would actually be better off without these basically useless things if the stuff hits the fan.

As with the Wirrways in Rabaul when taken by the Japs, having a flight of 6 of them achieved nothing but killing some good trained men, who would have been better used training new pilots in Oz until we had something at least useful to put into the air.

These subs will only take a crew to their end totally uselessly.

Are they not finding it difficult to raise crews for submarines, no matter who builds them or what sort they are - or how hugely expensive?

NAVAL SHIPBUILDING MONEY FOR VOTES A REALITY OF LIFE

Hi ttbn

Whered you so gratuitously claim "Defence has been just a job creation scheme to the morons in Canberra" YOU ARE SPOT ON.

Federal money allocated to certain States and the Federal electorates in them is political reality across all Federal Budget items.

South Australia has been dependent on Federal money (cars and submarines) for decades because South Australia is too arid to earn a decent farming return and Adelaide's population is so isolated from profitable cities. Also net immigration into South Australia is low or even negative "growth".

So Federal money was injected into South Australia's car industry (Holden and others) which kept South Australia going from the 1940s.

However without the car industry being articially in Adelaide, Adelaide needed another plausible industry to attract Federal money. That came by way of South Australia's build and maintain submarine industry and the large build destroyers/frigates industry.

More than coincidentally Federal money boosts South Australian jobs which in turn boosts VOTES in key marginal Federal electorates

For example massive Fed money promised for Adelaids's submarine building actually won the Coalition the 2016 Fed Election.

Now continuing shipbuilding cash for Adelaide will win Morrison the Fed Election likely in September/October this year or up to 21 May 2022 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Australian_federal_election#Election_date

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/

If it's "spot on" it can't be gratuitous. You don't know much about farming in SA, or Adelaide. But that's beside the point. Money should be spent on arming and training the civilian population, leaving the military to it's cross-dressing, gender politics and whatever the prevailing social fad is.

THE GREATER THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THE GREATER THE POLITICAL SHADOW PLAY

So France (Naval Group) are not building Australia's submarines late and over-budget.

It was the Coalition Government (now led by Morrison) who, in 2016, engineered the situation in which too much Federal money was earmarked over too long a period

TO BUY VOTES FOR THE MORRISON GOVERNMENT IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA IN THE UPCOMING (BY JULY 2022) FEDERAL ELECTION.

Forget building submarines in Australia. It has now been suggested we can't even build houses properly. A senior lecturer at RMIT University’s School of Property, Construction and Project Management says the standard is low. The majority of new houses in Australia only meet the minimum building code requirements, which are not sufficient to deliver year round thermal comfort. The houses are “glorified tents” compared with homes in Sweden, pointing out that temperatures inside a “flimsy” Queenslander dip below 18 degrees Celsius while Swedish houses remain at a comfortable 23 degrees, no matter the season.

The problem has arisen with people working from home, finding that their houses are not as warm as their offices at this time of the year.

Climate change gets the usual mention, even though that's supposed to be heating us up, but maybe it's not. Who knows with the constant BS we are fed.

Hi Pete,

The existing (more than 2 decades old) trouble-plagued
Collins subs Australia discussed replacing nearly a
decade ago. And the Collins subs were due to be retired
in the next few years.

In 2016 Australia selected the Naval Group to build a new
submarine fleet to replace its Collins subs and significantly
expand its military strategic and trade interests in the
Asia-Pacific. It was considered one of the most lucrative
defence deals.

However now it seems that Canberra requires
that the majority of the manufacturing and
components be sourced locally causing
delays and problems. With the result being that our Defence
Minister Peter Dutton has said he will order a refit of the
existing Collins class subs. The first of Australia's
six Collins class subs will reach their end of life span
in 2026.

So what's going on in Canberra? Wouldn't it be a better move
and much cheaper in the long-term to simply stick with the
French sub order - then play around with these old Collins
class subs?

I say stick with new sub fleet to replace the more than 2 decades
old Collins subs and expand our military strategic interests.
and trade in the Asia Pacific.

Hi Foxy

What is termed the Life of Type Extension (LOTE) modernisation plan for the Collins has been the Government's plan all along since 2017. Dutton might be implying LOTE is his idea but its 4 years old.

LOTEs are standard in Navy ships and submarines after around 17 years of service. LOTEs are much more economically and politically justifiable and sensible than building new "Interim" subs

or the Nuclear Subs (that coat Australia $10 Billion each and couldn't be built here).

With LOTEs being done in the mid-late 2020s at least 3 Collins will last till 2042 at the same time as 4 Attack class subs enter service.
So Australia will always have the 6 subs minimum we need rising to 12 subs around 2050.

The main weakness of the Collins has always been the gone-out-of-business-Swedish-Company Hedemora Diesel Engines. The Hedemora diesels are faulty, dangerous, can only be run to 80% maximum power and need to be removed in Adelaide from each Collins to be serviced. Hedemora Diesel servicing costs an average of $100 million per Collins per year = all up $600 million per year just servicing the diesels of the Collins class.

So replacing the Collins Hedemora diesels with the world's best and most common diesels (designed in Germany by a company called MTU) should be the main and very much necessary LOTE improvement for the Collins.

The Collins LOTEs have always been planned in conjunction with the introduction of the Attack class subs.

Regards

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/

Good Morning Pete,

Thank You for explaining things to me.

It now all makes sense as to what Australia
is trying to do.

Pete,

You've told us all about it. Is defence Minister Dutton au fait with your brilliant assessment of the subject.

Morning Foxy

Thanks.

And if China increases as a threat at the rate it has in the last 3 years all these Collins-LOTE and Attack-class timings should speed up.

Cheers

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/

Yes ttbn

Dutton and Co. studied this well http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/05/australian-interim-subs-naval-group.html .

Cheers

Pete

Dear Pete,

Thank You for this discussion.

As always - I've learned a lot.

There's an article in The Strategist by Michael Shoebridge concerning unmanned weapons that might put submarines in a totally different light for some people. Online, no paywall.

I don't know how many people are actually interested in the defence of their country, though. China and our defence seems to be an area that's a bit too scary for people to give much thought to. If they stay quiet and try not to think about it, everything will be OK. Yeah!

Hi ttbn

Can you do OLO the honour of actually listing the The Strategist-Michael Shoebridge LINK?

We've has this conversation before. Why are you always reluctant to actually publish LINKs?

Cheers

Pete

I don't know what 'honour' has to do with it. I don't know how to do it. I've asked for help, but as usual, smart arses with all the answers are not so forthcoming when asked a direct question. When I used to spell out where to find references, I was lambasted for using 'right wing' propaganda. Therefore, I don't do that any more either. I've given the name of the magazine. Google it is my best advise.

To help poor ttbn out

I think he is referring to - but cannot spell:

Michael Shoebridge's, writing for the ASPI Strategist, 9 March 2021 article "Australia should do more than just wait for the Attack-class submarines to arrive" at http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australia-should-do-more-than-just-wait-for-the-attack-class-submarines-to-arrive/

My comments on that article in a few hours.

Cheers

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-15-year-ssnxseawolf-2-debate-awaits.html

Thanks for the link Pete,

And Thanks to ttbn for recommending the article by
Shoebridge. Who says we don't learn from OLO.

Interesting subject.

You just can't stop losing, can you Pete. The article was written on the 23rd July, so you are lagging behind still. It wasn't about submarines, per se, that you have wet dreams about, but military technology in general with the mention of remote controlled under water vessels as opposed to manned submarines. Shoebridge is a professional, often interviewed on TV, whereas you are an overgrown boy better suited to playing with model train sets. You are the last person to be attempting to take the piss. I'll leave you to play with the girls.

8 years ago the RAN, through DMO, couldn't find enough maintainers to rebuild Mk48's...let alone man patrols for the Collins boats out of Stirling. I am of the understanding the situation is only slightly better today. Sadly we've well & truly let the ball go with successive governments since the Grand Larceny aka: The "War On Terror" came to town. Billions if not Trillions of dollars spent, to now go giving the whole lot back to the Taliban. Still, it was a great training exercise for the RAAF & Army, but really we are an island, so the greater urgency now is to protect our sea lanes and supply routes. Precisely why the CCP is seeking to deny those by dealing with Pacific Islands nations. French submarines best for Australia...au contraire ! Post haste a programme of building smaller submarines locally, with several fleet bases constructed in Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, Darwin and possibly another in Brisbane on the eastern seaboard, all supplemented with small high speed catamarans armed with appropriate surface to air/surface to surface missile systems. Oh and don't forget, our oil reserves, going on articles like: "Australia loses another oil refinery, leaving our fuel supply vulnerable to regional crises" See:
Australia's fuel supplies vulnerable if Middle East conflict cuts ...https://www.abc.net.au › news › australia-remains-vulne...
we're pretty well stuffed anyway.

No worries Foxy

I'm glad to bring http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australia-should-do-more-than-just-wait-for-the-attack-class-submarines-to-arrive/

to your attention.

Cheers

Pete

AUSTRALIA HAS ONLY FOUR QUALIFIED SUBMARINE COMMANDERS - ONLY ONE AUSTRALIAN BORN

Hi Albie Manton in Darwin

Re your "Post haste a programme of building smaller submarines locally"

A limiting factor is that any manned Australian sub, whether it be large, medium or small must be commanded by a fully qualified commander. These commanders come from the mainly Non-Australian born pool of fully qualified submarine commanders for the RAN.

The problem being Australia has only 4 sub commanders available for sea duty. See http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/submarines/ssg specifically the lowest Table - names below "Commanding Officer"

Australia's 4 Submarine Commanding Officers available for sea duty are:

- Commander Michael Power http://www.navy.gov.au/biography/commander-michael-power The ONLY AUSTRALIAN born submarine Commander at sea in AUSTRALIA"s Navy.

- Commander Robin Dainty http://www.navy.gov.au/biography/commander-robin-dainty BRITISH born. After spending most of his career in the UK RN submarine service Australia's SHORTAGE of homegrown submarine commanders able to pass the now Netherlands "Perisher" Course meant Dainty was encouraged to immigrate to Australia in order to transfer to the RAN.

- Commander Timothy Markusson http://www.navy.gov.au/biography/commander-timothy-markusson CANADIAN born. After spending most of his career in the CANADIAN submarine service Australia's SHORTAGE of homegrown submarine commanders able to pass the "Perisher" Course meant Markusson was encouraged to immigrate to Australia in order to transfer to the RAN.

- Commander Christopher Ellis https://www.navy.gov.au/biography/commander-christopher-ellis UK BORN, joined CANADIAN Navy. After spending half of his career in the Canadian Navy and RAN he finally transfeered to the RAN 2 years ago.

Australia's SHORTAGE of homegrown submarine commanders able to pass the now Netherlands "Perisher" Course means most of Australia's submarine commander only transfer to Australian subs when they are already foreign born and foreign trained.
____________________________________

Port of Darwin suffers from being to shallow and tidal for sub basing. Also Chinese ownership of Port of Darwin makes any operation of Australian submarines a SECURITY RISK.

CORRECTION FOR TYPOS

AUSTRALIA HAS ONLY 4 QUALIFIED SUBMARINE COMMANDERS - ONLY 1 AUSTRALIAN BORN

Hi Albie

Re your "Post haste a programme of building smaller submarines locally"

A limiting factor is that any manned Australian sub, whether it be large, medium or small, must be commanded by a fully qualified commander. These commanders come from the mainly Non-Australian born pool of fully qualified submarine commanders for the RAN.

The problem being Australia has only 4 sub commanders available for sea duty. See http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/submarines/ssg specifically the lowest Table - names below "Commanding Officer"

Australia's 4 Submarine Commanding Officers available for sea duty are:

- Commander Michael Power http://www.navy.gov.au/biography/commander-michael-power The ONLY AUSTRALIAN born submarine Commander at sea in AUSTRALIA"s Navy.

- Commander Robin Dainty http://www.navy.gov.au/biography/commander-robin-dainty BRITISH born. After spending most of his career in the UK RN submarine service Australia's SHORTAGE of homegrown submarine commanders able to pass the now Netherlands "Perisher" Course meant Dainty was encouraged to immigrate to Australia in order to transfer to the RAN.

- Commander Timothy Markusson http://www.navy.gov.au/biography/commander-timothy-markusson CANADIAN born. After spending most of his career in the CANADIAN submarine service Australia's SHORTAGE of homegrown submarine commanders able to pass the "Perisher" Course meant Markusson was encouraged to immigrate to Australia in order to transfer to the RAN.

- Commander Christopher Ellis http://www.navy.gov.au/biography/commander-christopher-ellis UK BORN, joined CANADIAN Navy. After spending half of his career in the Canadian Navy and RAN he finally transferred to the RAN 2 years ago.

Australia's SHORTAGE of homegrown submarine commanders able to pass the now Netherlands "Perisher" Course means most of Australia's submarine commanders are foreign born and foreign trained.
____________________________________

PORT OF DARWIN AND SUBS

Re: Darwin as a submarine base. Darwin Port suffers from being too shallow and tidal for safe, secure and effective submarine basing.

Also CHINESE ownership of Darwin's Port makes any operation of Australian submarines from there a SECURITY RISK, for Australia.

However China's South China Sea honewd skill at dredging island naval basese holds potential for CHINESE naval operations in Darwin.

CHINESE submarine operations from Darwin may be under review, in Naval HQ, Beijing.

Pete, we really, really, really do not have the time, nor do we have the $ available to spend on larger SSN type boats or skimmers to assist. As you point out, Darwin is stitched up by the CCP and their "lease" on East Arm Port. Several airdromes in WA, likewise are "leased" to the CCP. The HIKVISION cameras installed at RAAF Tindal a few years back have similarly given the CCP a look in through the tradesmans entrance. If the moot point of "suitably qualified" boat commanders is to be addressed - why not get the ball rolling at Stirling, the facilities there are world class from my personal associations there. In the interim time frame it requires to have the larger boats constructed, commissioned and crewed, get the smaller boats in the water and patrolling our nearer shorelines. Heaven forbid that the CCP Maritime surveillance aircraft engaged in our region, during the search for MH 370, used this as a golden opportunity to gather acoustic signatures of our assets whilst assisting in the joint effort. The answer is smaller - less expensive boats & skimmers and lots of em in the water and soon ! The mention of ROV's, or underwater drones also has merit. Used in a fashion similar to the tethered WW2 "acoustic mines", armed with MU90's these too could be effective in the shallower waters and approaches in deeper waters near strategic assets around our coastline.

There's no point in any of that if we can't even get the young to do a National Service in the first place ! To defend a Nation requires discipline & a sound mentality none of which are readily available here.
Hiring mercenaries would to the the best way for Australia at this stage.

H Albie
Re your "Wednesday, 28 July 2021 12:17:06 AM" comments:

Yes Australia's can't afford the $10 Billion each for even the smallest SSNs being built which are Fench Barracuda/Suffren class SSNs http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/07/dry-land-launch-of-frances-first.html

Other considerations are half the job of SSNs are to protect nuclear warhead-missile subs (SSBNs). Australia definitely won't be buying SSBNs.

Also if Australia bought SSNs, that might start a regional arms race with Indonesia buying SSNs as well - probably from Russia - a bad scenario.

Yes selling off strategically sensitive land/ports in Northern Australia to China, run by the CCP, is bad policy.

Obviously the RAN decided against homegrown training to qualify submarine commanders. If they fail to pass Dutch "Perisher" they'd fail Aussie "Perisher".
________________

MY point is usually missed that a Commander of a small sub must be as qualified, skilled and as experienced as a Commander of a large sub. So the training and shortage problems remain.

P.S. Albie

Re your points about Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (aka ROVs, AUVs or "drones", Boeing's Orca being large ones). They all suffer from:

- communication back to base problems. This means they have no SECURE links unlike Unmanned Aeriel Vehicles (which have constant direct upbeam comms with satellites).
- UUVs sending data back to base would could give away their positions
- UUV are potentially jammable.

The worst thing is UUVs can be potentially captured/hijacked by eg. China. If those Aussie UUVs are armed with mines, torpedoes or ant-ship missiles these could be reprogrammed/redirected by Chinese techos to sink passenger ships.

An Aussie UUV inadvertantly sinking a passenger ship would be an international PR, humanitarian disaster for Australia.

Hi individual,
(Your "Wednesday, 28 July 2021 6:49:00 AM" comment)

The issue under discussion (the shortage of qualified Australian born/trained submarine commanders) has absolutely nothing to do with 1960s style "National Service".

And these days any National Service would be press-ganged on men and WOMEN - all reluctantly semi-training for 1 to 2 years

National Service has nothing to do with the 6 years from voluteering for the RAN and then becoming a trusted, volunteer, fully trained submariner.

This is even more so for someone voluteering for the RAN then needing 20 years to train up to submarine Commander standard.

These UK and Canadian submarine Commanders transferring to the RAN have nothing to do with the "mercenaries" you mention.

I reckon the QUESTION ARE:

1. How come Australia has only FOUR available submarine Commanders?

AND

2. How come only 1 out of 4 can be produced by Australia's own Navy?

Regards

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/

has absolutely nothing to do with 1960s style "National Service".
plantagenet,
Who's talking about a 1960's style NS ?

As I said at the end of my first "opinion"...we're stuffed ! How much of our infrastructure, strategic assets and mines is actually owned (directly & indirectly) by Chinese & CCP interests? Sorry I can't answer that one accurately, but can only comment on what I have been directly involved with and that worries me. Again the issue of Indonesia "being offended" if Australia purchases weapons, systems, aircraft and other hardware, then ups the ante by buying Russian hardware to match ours. I sat many years ago, as a 9 yr old, alongside my Dad, listening to his old Chief Petty Officers warn us about Indonesia way back then. These 'Old Salts' were in many cases, veterans of WW2/Korea & at the time Vietnam. It seems we haven't taken heed of those history lessons when the Japanese were sending geologists, civil engineers and hydrographers to gather information about Australia in the mid/late 1930's. The Chinese today, need only disconnect us by a denial of service and our vacillating governments both Labor & Liberal will roll over, peeing themselves like dogs. It is unlikely, until the event of an actual - clear and present Chinese danger in our face, that conscription or National Service will be considered by any Australian government.

Thanks for all the information on the importance of the strategic capabilities of Nuclear Ballistic Subs for Australia. The unmanned underwater vehicle concept is interesting as are the telemetry issues. Australia being a uranium producer has some influence- not sure how this interacts with the NNPT/ BMTT- there are some rules for transferring nuclear weapons technology across borders- also some countries regularly bend NNPT/ BMTT. We are worrying about an arms race but this is already happening without us- but it's in our interest to avoid conflict with Indonesia- perhaps Darwin is the wrong location for a base.

Australia won't get into a conflict with China. The Unions with the backing of WPH&S will simply offer it for sale to China, just look at the deals over the past two decades and, that happened without conflict !

individual,

You might be right about the takeover without combat.

According to deserter Chen Yonglin, the CCP made a FORMAL decision to CONTROL Australia through trade, investment, political donations, and a “place of favour at the high table of the new empire”. We were “bought and beguiled” to the brink of political and economic submission.

Australia has only recently (and reluctantly) roused itself from the narcotic stupor, induced by addictively large amounts of Chinese Communist money. It might be too late. It might still happen, given our gutless politicians, who would be the ones at the table.

Hi individual

It was you talking about National Service

See your:

"There's no point in any of that if we can't even get the young to do a National Service in the first place...

Posted by individual, Wednesday, 28 July 2021 6:49:00 AM"

Hi Albie Manton in Darwin

Yes China is the main threat - to Aus and the whole Indo-Pacific region.

See my latest article http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/07/china-spits-dummy-hms-queen-elizabeth.html

Pete

Hi Canem Malum
and others interested.

Nuclear subs are so expensive only cashed up "Great" or "Super" powers can afford them. So even the UK and France with over twice Australia's GDP, can only afford 6 of the nuclear attack subs (SSNs) that Australia may want in the 2040s. By then China will have already invaded or absorbed more territory (eg. Taiwan) in our region.

If China succeeds in invading Taiwan this will free up Chinese military resources for more distant ventures - like blockading Australia through taking oiver islands like East Timor and even Vanuatu.
___________________________

As to nuclear propelled nuclear missile submarines (SSBNs) even UK and France can only afford 4. Three or four is the practical minimum. In the absence of US nuclear protection Australia might want to buy or build 3 SSBNs but only by 2050s.
_______________________

Canem

I agree "Darwin is the wrong location for a base." a naval base or a air base. Placing air or naval resources in Darwin leaves them too exposed to a rapid air attack or sneak naval attack. Also you need a large city to supply the manpower for a large naval base.

So Australia's main submarine base is just south of Perth at Rockingham at a base oddly called HMAS Stirling http://www.defence.gov.au/id/NCIS/HMAS-Stirling.asp

Meanwhile our main surface ship base is at "Fleet Base East - Garden Island" in Sydney Harbour http://www.navy.gov.au/establishments/fleet-base-east

MORE ON AUSTRALIAN SUBMARINE BASING - see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2020/02/australian-future-submarines-how-many.html

Pete

Thanks Plantagenet for the information your perspective and your blog link.

I like to think that Australia still has engineering capabilities but in my limited understanding the difficulties lie in the electronics and weapons technology and are held by the various large contractors.

There was of course significant Australian missile development completed in the 60's and bomb tech is 70 years old and fairly well understood even by pro-ams.

Australia will of course need a different defense procurement and R&D strategy than our allies- the US in particular has vastly greater resources- our spending needs to be more focused substituting more thought for less money- it's always been than way it seems.

The US of course also has it's own internal issues which undermine it's military integrity.

Any nation must be able to mobilize it's population and resources in the interest of itself- and obviously this is what is required here- but our systems and processes and certain people conspire to subvert the nations interest.

There are many opportunists out in the world looking to exploit the naive- Australia's interest is not necessarily the same as the world's interest.

There is a negotiating principle going around management circles by Jim Camp from memory "The Power of No". It seems to reject "Win Win" claims as manipulative and exploitative- as perhaps is the concept of universalism.

http://campnegotiations.com/

You might find the following interesting Plantagenet...

http://electricscotland.com/history/nation/stirling.htm

plantagenet,
Does the word 'if' mean anything to you ?

Yes China is the main threat
plantagenet,
The Lefties within Australia are an even greater threat !

Thanks Canem

For the Stirling link.

Looking at http://www.navy.gov.au/establishments/hmas-stirling HMAS Stirling was named after:

"Captain James Stirling, Royal Navy, the naval officer who landed on Garden Island in 1827 and returned in June, 1829 to found not only the first European settlement in Western Australia, but also the first free colony anywhere in Australia. Stirling's makeshift camp was set up on the craggy rock outcrop on the eastern side of the island, which today is known as Cliff Head and is the site of a memorial. Stirling's crest is based on the Stirling family coat-of-arms."
___________________________

Regarding outside help on missiles and nuclear weapons the US finally helped the UK in the 1950/60s with Polaris missile submarines, nuclear reactors and all. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_US%E2%80%93UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement

For Autralia to have an alternate supplier it didn't escape the attention of Australia's submarine selctors that France gave Isreal nuclear weapon and missile help in the 1950s-60s.

Also I have the feeling Israel did not need to hold its own nuclear tests because Israel definitly joint tested its nukes with France (in French North Africa) in the 1960s and I assume in France's Pacific tests later.

So all the money Australia is throwing at France for the Attack class subs is a downpayment on a possible nuclear for military purposes future for Australia.

Regards

Pete

Thanks again for the information Plantagenet especially the UK Polaris programme. We should be developing our own tech- it doesn't need to be expensive.