Navy may be without submarine fleet for two decades due to replacement plan, experts say   

Bobby. wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 9:46pm:


And how do we refuel the reactors, Bobby?

Who do we have that has been trained in nuclear engineering to maintain and run the reactors, Bobby?

Where do we park the nuclear powered submarines when we need to dock them, Bobby?

What do we do with the submarines and their reactors when they are no longer in service, Bobby?

As usual, your thinking leaves a great deal to be desired.   Keep trying, it's amusing to watch you keep putting your foot in your mouth all the time.   

Bobby. wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:58pm:



So, for first level maintenance we would send our submarines to France?   

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 1:40pm:


Yes, lets lose our superiority in technology, BigOl64, that'll really make sure we win the next big one, now won't it?   

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 3:31pm:


The Super Hornet is a full generation behind the F-35.  It lacks LO and it is based on a design which was originally designed in the 1970s.   The F-35 is a quantum leap above it, when one compares the EO and the Electronic warfare systems.   You have no proof that it will take an excessive amount of time to bring the F-35 online, any more than these "experts" have any proof that we will be without submarines for 20 years.   

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 3:31pm:



We can always build some Tiger Moths.

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 8:50am:



Oh, dear, Herbie, you have the wrong person.  I opposed allowing the US to permamently base their forces in our territory for many reasons but primarily because we don't need them.   We should be more to the US than a "suitable piece of real estate" but we aren't.  Nor is any one else.  Basing US forces here would tie us into their political and military aspirations.  Their needs are not always our needs.  Our political viewpoint is different to the US's.

Finally, traditionally basing US forces is undertaken on a friendly, "peppercorn rent" basis usually and provides little or no income to the hosting government.  US forces are invited to station their forces on overseas bases on a "needs" basis.  The needs might be different between the US and the hosting nation but they usually coincide over a perceived threat.

Hosting US forces would elevate Australia from a US ally to a US co-belligerent in any conflict and so, it is not something we need IMO.   During the Cold War, we hosted (and continue to host) US bases such as Narrangar, North-West Cape and Pine Gap.  The claim was that they contributed to keeping the peace.  In reality, they were there to help the US fight a nuclear war against the fUSSR and the PRC.   Today we only have Pine Gap.  The other two bases have closed or been taken over by our forces, for our own use.   Pine Gap is still a major cog in their nuclear war fighting system.  It makes Alice Springs a target for any attempted nuclear exchange between the US and Russia or PRC.   We have no say in how it is used and what it is used for.   

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 8:04am:


It's systems are full generation behind the F-35s, Bigol64.  BTW it is spelt "Wedgetail" not "Wedge tail".  We are not just up against the Indonesians, we are also up against the PRC and potentially even Russia.  Both have aircraft superior to the Super Hornet.   We bought the F/A-18 early so we are forced to purchase the F-35 early as well.   With such a purchase comes risks, slightly larger than if we bought them later but still risks.   We are gambling, as we always are in purchasing new defence equipment that any future conflict will be later rather than sooner.

Quote:


IYO.  In the opinion of those "in the know" that I know, the F-35 already outshine the Super Hornet and is a capable aircrate.  It's radar and EO systems are far in advance of the F-22s and much more capable.

Quote:


And yet it was considered "operational" by the powers that be.  Considering what the USAF was flying in 1972 compared to what we were flying, the F-111C was a far more capable aircraft when we received it and quite capable of attacking the enemy it was designed to be used against - the Indonesians and Chinese.

Quote:


The F-35 is an excellent fighter by all accounts (other than the nay-sayer's).   I know someone who was intimately involved in the manufacture of the F-35 and he provides excellent reports about it's capabilities, now, today, not tomorrow.