world

Australian PM confident U.S. will deliver nuclear-powered submarines

27 Comments
By ROD McGUIRK

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.


27 Comments
Login to comment

imagine that, we are producing more weapons for others to the further detriment our own capabilities.

At least Australia is purchasing these, thats better than usual.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Blacklabel - how would this be to the detriment of own capabilities?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Blacklabel - how would this be to the detriment of own capabilities?

They don't know. They're just angry.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

No need to answer, Blacklabel. I may have found what you are referring to. I support the additional funding for increased sub production.

WASHINGTON, July 27 (Reuters) - Twenty-five U.S. Republican lawmakers urged President Joe Biden on Thursday to increase funding for the country's submarine fleet, citing the recent three-nation AUKUS project to supply Australia with nuclear-powered submarines and concern about China's increasing military might.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

That’s 3 less submarines for our own fleet. Not like you just 3D print these things over a weekend.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Speaking in facts isn’t “anger”.

responding to facts emotionally is though.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

We have enough to destroy the world, several times over, but hay, the more the marrier.

This one's for YOU Xi.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The US is the number one exporter of weapons.

The United States is the largest arms exporter by 24 percentage points, with 33% during 2013-2017 increasing to 40% in 2018-2022. The other top countries were Russia, France, China and Germany.

https://www.axios.com/2023/03/14/global-arms-sales-us-dominates-russia

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Australia is planing on sending skilled people to US shipyards to help increase production, and to "donate" a few billion dollars to assist production. Enough for the US to purchase another submarine. Add the sale of three giving funds back to build three more for the US.

The Australian submarines can replace some US Submarines in the region, doing the exact same job US subs would do. With AUKUS the three nations intend on working much closer together and share the load more as well as the intelligence already shared under five eyes.

Once Australia has its eight nuclear powered submarines in the water, the benefit to the US will be greater than the loss of three units for 5-10 years before they replace them with the funds made from Australia.

The US needs greater capacity to build more submarines and this agreement gives impetus to the US to increase manufacturing and in the end will provide another ally with the ability to also manufacture these high end platforms to assist the US as it has for over seventy years, when the US requests Australian involvement/assistance.

I am confident US forces would be much happier knowing that Australian reinforcements will be SSN's with greater speed, endurance and firepower as opposed to diesel electric submarines that are slower, less armaments, shallower diving, and needing constant fuel replenishment. This is in US interests almost as much as it is in Australian interests.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This is in US interests almost as much as it is in Australian interests.

The art of the deal

6 ( +6 / -0 )

$246 billion. That's a lot of kangaroo burgers. Add to that the subs are designed to mesh with American plans to dominate far distant Pacific waters, rather than the coast of Australia.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

That’s 3 less submarines for our own fleet. Not like you just 3D print these things over a weekend.

lol No it isn't. If the DOD orders subs, they will get them. If they don't order them, they won't. Besides, we do we need even more subs? Silly.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Add to that the subs are designed to mesh with American plans to dominate far distant Pacific waters, rather than the coast of Australia.

Australian forces have always been designed to assist allies anywhere in the world. The Australian navy has fought all around the globe, from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean, from the Pacific to the Indian oceans, usually as part of larger formations of allied ships. They also operate locally and independently for defense of Australia. With that in mind, why would Australia now turn to local defense only? It makes more sense to continue to contribute to the defense of allies and friends as we always have done. We are stronger together than alone.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

imagine that, we are producing more weapons for others to the further detriment our own capabilities.

huh American currently runs 11 carriers and about 65 subs, they have the largest military budget by far.

having a strong Navy presence in Australasia is both beneficial to Australia and the US

7 ( +7 / -0 )

The Aussie can wait, they do have that long patience to wait for their naive dreams come true about owning nuclear submarines(SSN). Thirty years from now at least to acquire their first SSN, until then the Virginia class will be obsoleted.

They should have listening to Paul Keating's advice to abandon that stupid deal. Pity no Aussie took his adivce seriously. By the way until then 2053 the first SSN May cost over 8 billion dollars per boat as the cost will soar and soar due to the delays. Usually the people from "The third world" has very big and silly dreams.What a sucker deal!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@Peter14 And now your $246 billion investment can help your navy sail submarines outside the first island chain thousands of kilometers away from Australian waters in an attempt to contain China. Congratulations. Of course $246 billion only buys you 8 subs and on average only 4 will be deployed. The Pacific is a large body of water.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Just destroy them when they are on route, and many civilian lives will be saved.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

does Australia really need these submarines?

or guy on photos still need make more bloody money from gun sales?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

deanzaZZRToday 02:09 pm JST

@Peter14 And now your $246 billion investment can help your navy sail submarines outside the first island chain thousands of kilometers away from Australian waters in an attempt to contain China. Congratulations. Of course $246 billion only buys you 8 subs and on average only 4 will be deployed. The Pacific is a large body of water.

I see no down side from this. All modern military naval platforms are expensive and expected to serve 20-40 years in Australian service. Australia does not shirk its duty to help promote and keep peace, and to face autocratic nations with designs on empire building in this day and age among other tasks these ships will ultimate do in service of Australia. This improvement in military capacity comes at a time of turmoil with Russia's invasion, China's planned invasion of Taiwan, unrest in Africa, South America, Middle east. It is a small world indeed and we are all a part of it. There is no point is identifying issues as regional, as the global trade interweaves though every region making things global.

Russia's invasion is in Ukraine but it disrupts global food supplies, making that conflict of global concern. Taiwan will be no less a global concern.

Those called upon to defend freedom against forces working to capture, enslave and deprive people of their right to choose, must remain vigilant and prepared. Australia is enhancing its ability to serve that cause with increased capabilities in the naval sphere and in missile defense, while bolstering domestic manufacturing of munitions including long and short range missiles, 155mm artillery rounds, armoured vehicles, self propelled artillery, AI unmanned fighters as multi mission units and force multipliers for manned air force platforms and more. SSN's add ranger for power projection and gives an improved ability to respond to attacks from anywhere and anyone close or far in a limited and calculated way. For Australia and its allies.

Australia has a small but modern military. It threatens nobody, but will be able to respond when called on to do so. A military of less than 100,000 of combined army, navy and air force regulars, even with modern arms, threatens nobody on its own, least of all China.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The U.S. wins this one.

You have three nuclear powered subs in the Pacific to counter China, You get Australia to buy them, station them and operate them all free of charge. Absolutely brilliant.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Peter14 Spoken so well for the Australian military. I'm sure many in your country honor your service. Some other Australians certainly question spending $246 billion (US) on subs to "contain China". Biden fist pump

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

does Australia really need these submarines?

maybe useful when coal or mineral laden ships crash into the Great Barrier Reef, except they will also crash.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Just in case the United States ever gets another president who , in his own words, falls in love the tyrants threatening democracy. Money well spent.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@deanzaZZR More than ten years later, the Aussies will acknowledge their $246 billion is way too little to pay for the cost overruns. Meanwhile the Americans has told them shortage of skilled labours and the schedule to service their own SSN, the schedule to deliver first boat will delays two years at least. There were too much uncertainty in this 12 years. There will be two outcome, either the massive budget sunk Australia or the project sunk itself. Australia just cannot afford this program. Keating's remarks is right, the worst deal ever!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

There will be two outcome, either the massive budget sunk Australia or the project sunk itself. Australia just cannot afford this program. Keating's remarks is right, the worst deal ever!

Some seem to be wishing heavily that this will fail. It will not be allowed to fail. The cost is bearable and spread out over 40 -50 years would be expensive but doable at twice the cost. Currently about 5 bill per year. Australia has a defense budget approaching 30 bill per year. This capacity is needed and as such failure is not an option. It may take a little longer or cost a little more but once the capacity is achieved, it will become easier to maintain as time and experience improve. The first three officers have already completed the basic nuclear course for the US navy.

As for being a bad deal, how much more would it cost Australia trying to achieve this on its own? And how much longer would it take. In that light, this deal is the best possible for acquiring nuclear powered submarines.

Keep hoping it will fail, it fuels the determination to get it done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US is likely to take the deal.

It's number 1 export is propaganda.

It's number 2 export is weapons.

It's number 3 export is the license to wage war, and violently oppress.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites