+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: Defence procurement bungles and wins (/thread-5575.html)
Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins - ElwoodBlues1 - 03-15-2023
(03-14-2023, 11:26 PM)Lods link Wrote:The way things are going we'll be lucky to see 2025, let alone 2050, without a full scale conflict.Xi has locked himself in as China's main man now for the rest of his life and he will be in his 90's around the time we get our subs so the Chinese pathway of expansion is expected to continue.
The world will be a very different place by 2050.
China are expected to commence building more nuclear subs and surveillance vessels/ aircraft to counteract the AUKUS plans so I'm sure the military participants will be bumping into each other more often and causing some political spats.
Got to feel sorry for Taiwan who are now in more danger as China will escalate their plans in the South China sea and probably feck up world trade and try and sink the Western economies into more misery to put pressure on military spending.
Nuke subs are just chess piece ballistic missile launching platforms you can deploy at higher speeds and hide a bit better, hopefully common sense prevails and we dont get too many of them hovering around our country.
The way China build stuff we are more likely to get one sink or explode off our shores and create a nuclear waste disaster.....
Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins - LP - 03-15-2023
Deuterium is needed for reactors, it doesn't just grow =on trees where is that coming from?
Well actually, it sort of does grow on trees, just under water trees! Deuterium and heavy water is naturally occurring in the ocean, about 30g for every cubic meter of seawater, not much more than a capful again, but there are a lot of cubic meters in the ocean, enough for thousands or millions of years even with out future efficiency gains.
There is that link again, the desalination plant / nuclear energy synergy. Deuterium can be refined as a by-product of large scale desalination operations, in fact years ago once they had worked out what they were doing they realised they actually have to remove the deuterium as too much in drinking water becomes toxic to life!
Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins - LP - 03-15-2023
(03-15-2023, 12:40 AM)ElwoodBlues1 date Wrote:China are expected to commence building more nuclear subs and surveillance vessels/ aircraft to counteract the AUKUS plans so I'm sure the military participants will be bumping into each other more often and causing some political spats.I don't think AUKUS has anything to do with China's plans, they are on a full speed ahead expansionist policy already.
For political purposes China might use AUKUS as the excuse, but it's a pretty weak excuse.
From what I hear coming out of China's mainland they are going to be flat out avoiding an internal rebellion over the coming decades, so it's likely they'll pick some fights to act as a distraction for disgruntled youth / citizens. At the moment Xi relies on the ignorance of the rural isolated and a lack of transparency to the leveraging of overseas Chinese by threatening friends and family back home. Having other politicians carted off on live TV is about creating fear.
Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins - Thryleon - 03-15-2023
The current theory is that we have t minus 5 years for China to make a meaningful move against Taiwan before that action will yield ridiculously bad results, or the importance of Taiwan to vanish (its all about a patented chip that is only produced there).
The USA is attempting to build a factory capable of producing this particular chip, but is about 5 years away of being able to replicate the importance of Taiwan. Until then, they are a single point of failure and it will make the global chip shortage look like a walk in the park, if anything happens before then.
What does this mean for us? Well, it depends. Taiwan and the south china sea, is more easily defended whilst Taiwan is independent because there are two chokepoints that we can currently keep the Chinese Navy in and stop them from reaching out. This is why the uproar occurred about ports in the Pacific and China owning them because they were effectively capable of launching military operations from outside this choke point.
We are truly on the precipice of something happening if the rumours are to be believed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6sCsOdqXQw
Who knows for sure. Interesting time to be alive. We have had the technological revolution since 1997 (when you think how far technology has grown, the fact we now fly around the world frequently, satellites, computers, mobiles etc, it really did all change then), 9/11, the middle eastern conflicts (Syria, Lybia), the crimean annexation, a pandemic, a couple of GFC's and now it appears we are staring at world war 3 not far away.
FFS, you think we could have at least pinched a flag in that time (I thought Id end up on a comedic note at least).
Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins - LP - 03-15-2023
I have a lot of respect for Paul Keating, he basically worked miracles that kept Hawk in power.
However, he does have a blind spot, and it's in his trust for his Chinese compatriots. Keating seems to entertain the idea that the personal goodwill he experiences from his Chinese colleagues will be extended to all and sundry by default, but the truth about that misconception is seen in how China's elite treat many of it's own citizens let alone visiting foreigners. There are groups of people in China treated with less respect by Chinese authorities than the livestock traded in a wet market.
People still disappear off the street daily, families and friends are threatened to gain leverage, overseas citizens get abducted or threatened.
If you are a foreigner, you won't even get a fair trial, so whatever you do if visiting do not slip up!
Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins - DJC - 03-22-2023
(03-14-2023, 07:48 PM)Gointocarlton link Wrote:Thanks DJ. For context, from a weaponry point of view, how much does sub carry? I know nuclear subs can stay submerged for months at a time and can be virtually undetectable, but what sort of weapons payload can they carry compared to say a surface battleship?
The last battleship, USS Missouri (displacement 58,000 tons), was decommissioned in 1992 (after featuring in "Under Siege"). The latest USN aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R Ford (displacement 112,000 tons), is by far the largest ever warship and it carries an enormous payload of aircraft and their munitions as well as surface to air missiles and other air defence weapon sustems. After the aircraft and heicopter carriers, the next largest warship would be a Kirov class cruiser (displacement 28,000 tons).
The USS Zumwalt (displacement 16,000 tons) is a stealth destroyer with the very latest suite of weapons and defensive systems. It carries 2 X 155mm guns, 2 X 30mm close defence weapon systems, 80 vertical launch cells for a range of missiles including Tomahawks, two helicopters and three UAVS with their own weaponry.
Virginia class submarines displace 10,000 tons and have four 21" torpedo tubes and 12 vertical launch tubes for missiles. They would carry 25 torpedoes and 40 missiles. The Virginia class launch tubes can also support future payloads such as autonomous vehicles, AIM-9X surface-to-air missiles and hypersonic boost-glide missiles. Astute class submarines displace 7,000 tons (the same as our Hobart class Air Warfare Destroyers) and have six 21" torpedo tubes and carry 38 torpedoes and missiles, all launched via the torpedo tubes. Our Collins class submarines displace around 3,400 tons and carry a mix of 22 torpedoes and missiles or 44 sea mines all deployed via six 21" torpedo tubes.
Our Hobart class destroyers have 1 X 5" gun, 1 X Phalanx and 2 X 25mm close defence weapon systems, 48 missile launch cells, two torpedo tubes, and one helicopter.
Basically, the Astute and Virginia class submarines are much larger that the Collins class and can carry a significantly greater weapons payload. Neither can carry anywhere near the weaponry of an equivalently sized surface warship but they can carry their weapons much further and for much longer and can strike targets without being detected.
Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins - Thryleon - 03-22-2023
I visited the USS Missouri last year. Looks like it would be fine for use if required.
Possibly obsolete in modern warfare, but last saw active duty in Afghanistan and has been around for a long time.
Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins - Mav - 03-22-2023
Fortunately, the USS Missouri was able to dodge and weave around the Taliban’s fleet of cruise and anti-ship missiles.
PS: It was decommissioned before the invasion of Afghanistan. It was involved in the 1st Gulf War. It hasn’t moved under its own power since 1992.
But even in the Gulf War, the ability of the Iraqis to target US ships was pretty much eliminated soon after hostilities began. The USS Missouri would be good to have if we want to declare war on Tonga but it would provoke hilarity rather than shock and awe if it were deployed against a country with a decent military.
Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins - Lods - 03-22-2023
(03-22-2023, 04:40 AM)Mav link Wrote:Fortunately, the USS Missouri was able to dodge and weave around the Taliban’s fleet of cruise and anti-ship missiles.
PS: It was decommissioned before the invasion of Afghanistan. It was involved in the 1st Gulf War. It hasn’t moved under its own power since 1992.
But even in the Gulf War, the ability of the Iraqis to target US ships was pretty much eliminated soon after hostilities began. The USS Missouri would be good to have if we want to declare war on Tonga but it would provoke hilarity rather than shock and awe if it were deployed against a country with a decent military.
We can still use it for surrenders. ?
Re: Defence procurement bungles and wins - Mav - 03-22-2023
If we surrender to Tonga, I’ll be very upset (although the odds the bookies would offer on that result could make it a windfall).