AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.

coolgod

Brigadier
Registered Member
Part of me wants them to go for a second round just when the Aussies breathe a sigh of relief and believe that the thing is over.
Look closely at the map, where does the circumnavigation tour end? Suspiciously close to the port of Darwin that was leased to China for 99 years, maybe the PLAN sailors can be welcomed for a rest or something ;)

Would you look at that, suddenly a flurry of news about port of the Darwin now.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Australia to Hold Talks Over Future of China’s Darwin Port Lease​

Australian officials will meet with local authorities this week to discuss the future of the Port of Darwin, currently
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to Chinese-owned company Landbridge Group, as concerns remain over foreign ownership of the strategic asset.

Representatives from the Northern Territory government will travel to Canberra on Thursday to discuss the port and “steps necessary to secure its future,” according to a statement released Tuesday by NT Treasurer Bill Yan. He called for clarity from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on possible funding for Darwin Port.
“We’ve been doing our due diligence now over many, many months to make sure that what we do around Landbridge and any acquisition of the port is done in the correct manner,” Yan told reporters on Tuesday.

Federal and territory authorities have been discussing how to deal with uncertainty around the port since November, when reports first emerged of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
at Landbridge. In an emailed statement on Tuesday, Landbridge Australia Non-Executive Director Terry O’Connor said the Port of Darwin isn’t for sale.
“The minister’s announcement today has come as a surprise and I can confirm that Landbridge and Darwin Port have not been involved in any discussions on the matter,” he said.

The Northern Territory government originally approved the lease to the Chinese company, a decision criticized by then President Barack Obama as Darwin — on the doorstep of a Southeast Asian region that’s increasingly being contested by China — is also a base for thousands of US Marines. The federal government later changed laws that would allow it to force states and territories to cancel new or existing agreements with foreign governments.
Still, a Department of Defence review that began in 2021 found that there were
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
as a result of the deal.

One of Albanese’s lawmakers in the Northern Territory, Luke Gosling, told
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on Monday that the government is looking at buying the port back from Landbridge, potentially with “a mix of federal government funds and institutional investors.”
“We can return the port to Australian hands where it should be and we can start to make the most of our strategic position in the Indo-Pacific,” Gosling said. The Labor lawmaker also questioned whether Landbridge was meeting its obligations under the terms of the lease.

Asked at a press conference in Sydney on Tuesday, Albanese didn’t confirm or deny whether he was considering using federal money to buy back the port. “We wouldn’t have sold it in the first place,” he said.
 

tygyg1111

Captain
Registered Member
Look closely at the map, where does the circumnavigation tour end? Suspiciously close to the port of Darwin that was leased to China for 99 years, maybe the PLAN sailors can be welcomed for a rest or something ;)

Would you look at that, suddenly a flurry of news about port of the Darwin now.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Australia to Hold Talks Over Future of China’s Darwin Port Lease​

Landbridge Corp: We can sell it back to you for 22.1 Billion
 

Lethe

Captain
Not sure how that actually works, but I think we've all been around long enough to know that defense acquisitions don't always (appear to) make sense, especially when we don't know all the political, diplomatic, bureaucratic, logistical and/or financial considerations in play.

Regardless, I thought the Australian authorities have been flirting with the idea of acquiring F-35Bs for a while now?

Seems like a logical capability to pursue, assuming the requisite resources can be availed, especially considering the direction the RAN appears to be heading towards. If the RAN wants to add six 8,000+ ton "frigates" and SSNs to its fleet, then it sounds like power projection is the goal.

I think we can be reasonably confident that there is no firm determination on the part of the Coalition that Australia should go in for F-35Bs, for if there were then Peter Dutton would surely have said so, mining the symbolic value of a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to naval fixed-wing aviation for political advantage: the Liberal party stands firm on the storm-swept deck of history, looking steely-eyed into the distance, while feckless Labor can't even keep an eye on Chinese ships in the Tasman Sea, etc. etc.

The Hunter-class frigates are actually going to be ~10,000 tonne ships (with 32 VLS cells...), with most of the growth over the baseline Type 26 owing to accommodations for the domestic CEAFAR2 radar, the first ship to be delivered some 14 years after the design was selected. It's a ridiculous program, really, which is why the 2023 Defence Strategic Review recommended it be cut from 9 ships to 6 whilst simultaneously discerning a new requirement for eleven Tier 2 frigates.

Of course, if Australia had built 6-8 Hobart-class AWDs instead of cutting the line off at three, and immediately followed that program up with 6-8 more modest Tier 2 frigates (e.g. Mogami, MEKO A-200, FDI), the resulting inventory would've been (a) cheaper (b) delivered in a more timely fashion that better corelates with the evolving strategic environment, whilst having (c) greater levels of domestic industry involvement and (d) better prospects in terms of sustainment and future upgrade programs. For all the rhetoric, the record these past ~15 years has been one of chronic mismanagement, with AUKUS as the spectacular capstone to that ignominious record.

How significant of a savings in terms of manpower did the British SSN proposal offer compare to the American SSN proposal?
From a logistical and training point of view, it might make more sense to build Virginia class derivatives in Australia, if that's what your sailors are already familiar with . . . or is the SSN(R) in fact a derivative of the Virginia class as is?

I haven't encountered any numbers in the public domain, but SSN(R) has been described as an evolution of the Astute-class boats and the numbers there suggest crew complement roughly two-thirds that of a Virginia-class SSN. Submarine crewing appears to be quite variable: the Soviets leaned heavily into automation such that some of their SSNs have crew complements more in line with SSKs. There isn't much public visibility into the British submarine programs and industry, beyond the general sense that it is a rather marginal affair. If there is any area of AUKUS that a future Coalition government may seek to revisit, it is probably Labor's decision to favour a British design for that future boat.

Relatedly, the final piece of evidence as to the real nature and intent of AUKUS is former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's disclosure that one of the reasons the French design had been selected for the previous SSK project is that it was compatible with a future nuclear pathway if that were ultimately to be desired, the Shortfin Barracuda being largely an SSK-ified Suffren, and that conversations had been held with Paris, and assurances obtained, in that regard. Notably, the French Suffren SSNs operate a similar crew complement as our current Collins-class SSKs, half that of a Virginia-class submarine. So the decision under Morrison/Dutton was not so much to dump SSKs for SSNs, but Paris for Washington.
 
Last edited:

zyklon

Junior Member
Registered Member
The Hunter-class frigates are actually going to be ~10,000 tonne ships (with 32 VLS cells...), with most of the growth over the baseline Type 26 owing to accommodations for the domestic CEAFAR2 radar, the first ship to be delivered some 14 years after the design was selected.

At ~10,000 tons in displacement, the Hunter class is practically the size of a Cold War era CG.

The CEAFAR2 can't possibly require that much room, so guessing the Hunter class is intended for extended patrols far from Australian shores, especially if it's only armed with a 32 cell VLS?

I haven't encountered any numbers in the public domain, but SSN(R) has been described as an evolution of the Astute-class boats and the numbers there suggest crew complement roughly two-thirds that of a Virginia-class SSN. Submarine crewing appears to be quite variable: the Soviets leaned heavily into automation such that some of their SSNs have crew complements more in line with SSKs. There isn't much public visibility into the British submarine programs and industry, beyond the general sense that it is a rather marginal affair.

Some of the official language that the Australian authorities have used to describe the AUKUS program acknowledges that the resultant submarine will share a significant number of common systems with the Virginia class.

404365.png

Per the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
:
SSN-AUKUS will incorporate US technology, such as propulsion plant systems and components, a common vertical launch system and weapons. The AUKUS partners will also develop a joint combat system as an expansion of the US-Australia combat system.

Don't think anyone will know for sure without some level of insider knowledge, at least for a while, but from the verbiage, there is a possibility that the AUKUS submarine will be a "distant cousin," "Australianized version," or otherwise (arguably) a derivative of a late block of the Virginia class considering all the common systems that they will share.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
Tracking update for 05/03:
View attachment 147019

Thanks for the update. Very interesting.

Wondering what happen to 054A and 903A? it seems from 13 Feb, only yellow which is only 055 ?

I wouldn't be surprised if PLAN would have friendly visit to Jakarta or Surabaya and also for re-supplying and re-fuelling, sometime next week maybe. Thats would be very awesome and a very strong message to Australia from both China and Indonesia
 

coolgod

Brigadier
Registered Member
Thanks for the update. Very interesting.

Wondering what happen to 054A and 903A? it seems from 13 Feb, only yellow which is only 055 ?

I wouldn't be surprised if PLAN would have friendly visit to Jakarta or Surabaya and also for re-supplying and re-fuelling, sometime next week maybe. Thats would be very awesome and a very strong message to Australia from both China and Indonesia
Yellow includes the 054A and 903A.
 
Top