AUKUS Treaty NEWS ONLY

WatcherZero said:
The governments weren't pre-notified, the NOTAM was broadcast directly from the Chinese ships to Emirates aircraft UAE3HJ flying from Sydney to Christchurch after the commencement of the exercise. That aircraft then passed this on to the air traffic controllers which warned other aircraft to avoid the area.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2025-02-21/radio-interview-abc-radio-perth-drive
Click to expand...
Ho Lee Fuk that is NOT cool. [6.4TB of profanity redacted]
 
Halcyon66 said:
Interesting reply and good points yet...........

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2...from-china-trade-row-with-australia/100659480
https://defencehub.live/threads/ame...aled-as-trade-war-with-china-escalates.11039/
https://www.afr.com/politics/federa...ofiting-from-china-trade-bans-20210913-p58rar
Things that make you go hmmmmm?

Australia does not have a defence policy; the US has one for us.

And we don't really have a navy considering our coastline. I think Singapore has more submarines than we do?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/submarines-by-country
Regards,
Click to expand...
I'd hardly suggest that because Singapore has one submarine than Australia makes it significantly more powerful, particularly when you consider that their subs are all short-range, coastal boats compared with our COLLINS class submarines which boast a remarkable range of 11,500 nautical miles.
 
Halcyon66 said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11...ne-is-fully-operational-aging-fleet/104551528
https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/...llins-class-submarines-currently-operational/
The Singapore reference was more a joke than anything, I used to live there and don't understand why then even have one.

Regards,
Click to expand...

Because 70% of Chinese shipping passes close by and the island relies on Malaysia for 60-70% of its food and water while its also closely allied with Taiwan. It recognises that its extremely vulnerable to larger neighbours that see a small rich strategically important fruit ripe for plucking so it needs sharp teeth to deter them and so It modelled its armed forces on Israel.
 
Singapore would go over like an old lady on ice.

Ok so history shows that the Chinese Malay, Thai, and the list goes on always bail on the motherland.

Tawain resulted because of the cultural revolution in 1949 in the and Lee Kuan Yew (Chinese Malay) bailed on Malaysia in the 60's and made Singapore what it is today.

Regards,
 
Singapore was kicked out of the Malaysian Federation because of internal trade barriers, being considerably more conservative than the rest of the 12 Malaysian states which were more socialist, they had race riots in Singapore over anti-Malay discrimination, and the political parties from each were trying to set up in their opponents heartlands despite an agreement not to. For a decade Malaysians serving in the Singapore armed forces or positions of military/police power was banned. The Singapore right didn't object to separation as they saw it as an opportunity to get a leg up on the Singapore left. Singapore today wasnt a result of the 60's, it had been an extremely affluent trade hub for a century before that due to the military security provided by the naval base. You are right though that the Chinese diaspora, people fleeing the poverty as the empire collapsed and growing communist uprising in China from the Soviet intervention in 1923 onwards in pre and post Japanese invasion waves to Malaysia, US, Taiwan and Australia in search of a better life has had a large influence on the region. A lot of middle and upper class Chinese wealth fled to Singapore in the 20's and 30's following in the footsteps of the earlier migratory workers taking advantage of settling in the communities they had already established.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
That seems designed to drive Oz further away from any rapprochement with China...

I really don't want to believe that the Party is that tone-deaf.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at their foreign policy? It seems designed to drive everyone in the region towards the U.S. outside Pakistan and Bestest Korea. The pressure against Japan and the PI in particular seems like a very long winded own goal that is bearing fruit for the U.S. Japan is set to field its own supersonic/hypersonic missiles in its southernmost islands, along with a purchase of hundreds of tomahawks, and the PI amazingly seems fine hosting the MRC indefinitely.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I don't disagree, but it really boggles my mind, even accounting for the usual casual Asian Racism.
Click to expand...

The only thing I can think of is that such moves are for internal consumption or that some of their diplomatic corps (and maybe Xi himself) is drinking their own koolaide with regards to PRC inevitability.
 
Josh_TN said:
Have you looked at their foreign policy? It seems designed to drive everyone in the region towards the U.S. outside Pakistan and Bestest Korea. The pressure against Japan and the PI in particular seems like a very long winded own goal that is bearing fruit for the U.S. Japan is set to field its own supersonic/hypersonic missiles in its southernmost islands, along with a purchase of hundreds of tomahawks, and the PI amazingly seems fine hosting the MRC indefinitely.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that all ten ASEAN member states are siding with the US against PRC?
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
Are you suggesting that all ten ASEAN member states are siding with the US against PRC?
Click to expand...

They largely seem to be staying neutral outside Myanmar. Vietnam was making inroads to cooperation with the U.S. last administration. It’s worth noting that the PRC has territorial disputes with half of ASEAN, and has been rather petty and relentless with at least a couple of them. But I was thinking more along the lines of Japan, PI, and India.
 
Josh_TN said:
They largely seem to be staying neutral outside Myanmar. Vietnam was making inroads to cooperation with the U.S. last administration. It’s worth noting that the PRC has territorial disputes with half of ASEAN, and has been rather petty and relentless with at least a couple of them. But I was thinking more along the lines of Japan, PI, and India.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, all ten ASEAN member states support China's proposed South China Sea Code of Conduct, except the Philippines.
How many English-language media outlets reported on this?

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/wjdt_674879/sjxw_674887/202502/t20250221_11560286.shtml 1740493206104.png
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
To my knowledge, all ten ASEAN member states support China's proposed South China Sea Code of Conduct, except the Philippines.
How many English-language media outlets reported on this?

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/wjdt_674879/sjxw_674887/202502/t20250221_11560286.shtmlView attachment 760832
Click to expand...

None that I can find. I would be happy for any links to recent developments in English, particularly what the unresolved dispute(s) in the agreement conditions are.

But I am not clear on how COC would be interpreted as favoring the U.S. or PRC?
 
Josh_TN said:
None that I can find. I would be happy for any links to recent developments in English, particularly what the unresolved dispute(s) in the agreement conditions are.

But I am not clear on how COC would be interpreted as favoring the U.S. or PRC?
Click to expand...
Are there no reports from Indonesian and Malaysian media either?
The core of the COC is to exclude external powers, which from the Philippines' perspective means excluding the US.
https://m.thepaper.cn/baijiahao_26328823《南海各方行为宣言》（中英对照）
1740495323445.jpeg
 
Last edited:
'Done on the Fourth Day of November in the Year Two Thousand and Two in Phnom Penh, the Kingdom of Cambodia'
22 years of incidents in the South China Sea since then.

I just remembered. Wasn't this supposed to be a news only thread?
 
Arjen said:
'Done on the Fourth Day of November in the Year Two Thousand and Two in Phnom Penh, the Kingdom of Cambodia'
22 years of incidents in the South China Sea since then.

I just remembered. Wasn't this supposed to be a news only thread?
Click to expand...
What I mean is, from the perspectives of China and the nine ASEAN nations, the United States is attempting to turn the Philippines into a second Ukraine.
The AUKUS alliance is nothing but a farce, with Oz building SSN under the guise of 'protecting China-Australia trade routes
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
Oz building SSN
Click to expand...
Oz needs new subs.

They have a HUGE chunk of water to patrol. Oz has larger territorial waters than the USA does. The best way to patrol a large area is to have nuclear subs.

The only reason countries that operate submarines don't operate nuclear subs is because they either don't want to develop or have not yet developed a sufficiently-compact nuclear reactor.

Because nuclear power makes THAT much a difference in the performance of a submarine.



Josh_TN said:
The only thing I can think of is that such moves are for internal consumption or that some of their diplomatic corps (and maybe Xi himself) is drinking their own koolaide with regards to PRC inevitability.
Click to expand...
JFC I hope not! That way lies the PRC doing the equivalent of Russia's Ukraine invasion.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Oz needs new subs.

They have a HUGE chunk of water to patrol. Oz has larger territorial waters than the USA does. The best way to patrol a large area is to have nuclear subs.

The only reason countries that operate submarines don't operate nuclear subs is because they either don't want to develop or have not yet developed a sufficiently-compact nuclear reactor.

Because nuclear power makes THAT much a difference in the performance of a submarine.
Click to expand...
Given that US Congress can barely fund two nuclear submarines annually while domestic shipyards struggle to handle even three orders over two years, how realistic is it to expect Americans to guide Australia from scratch in building submarine docks?
good luck
 
While the U.S. has a very checkered history in the PI at best, it has zero claims in the region and as far as I know, zero complaints logged against its ships there (outside perhaps the PRC). More over it is not a party to ASEAN or the SCS COC, so I fail to see relevance.

The fact is that the PRC has gone out of its way to militarily/para militarily assert its claims in the region, most especially against the PI but also several other countries as well. It also has thrown its weight around economically against countries that even criticized it (Australia being a prime example).

I do seriously wonder if the US would have any soft power projection in the region or indeed if AUKUS or The Quad would exist had the PRC had a less aggressive posture and less caustic diplomacy.
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
Given that US Congress can barely fund two nuclear submarines annually while domestic shipyards struggle to handle even three orders over two years, how realistic is it to expect Americans to guide Australia from scratch in building submarine docks?
good luck
Click to expand...
Congress can fund it just fine, the shipyards even have space to build.

What the shipyards do not have is enough workers. And it just flat takes a shit-ton of time to clear and train up a submarine welder. On the order of 6 months to clear them, and at least that long to train them.

And guess what? The oil industry pays better, so most welders don't wanna work in Groton or Norfolk/Newport News. And I honestly cannot blame them, both places are shitholes.
 
"IF" being the operative conjunction.

So how exactly would we, Australia, have a nuclear sub today?

Also didn't realise that only a nuclear sub can follow another nuclear sub, didn't realise there was an etiquette to it all.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Halcyon66 said:
"IF" being the operative conjunction.

So how exactly would we, Australia, have a nuclear sub today?

Also didn't realise that only a nuclear sub can follow another nuclear sub, didn't realise there was an etiquette to it all.

Regards,
Click to expand...

A diesel sub would have been unable to keep up with them while hoovering up ELINT (such as FCS) and screw noise while Frigates don't have the endurance to follow them for more than a week or two before having to return to replenish.

The Australians were completely unaware of its NOTAM broadcast until notified by commercial aircraft. New Zealand however had deployed the frigate HMNZS Te Kaha to the edge of its EEZ and detected the NOTAM an hour earlier than the Australians were notified, crucially 30 minutes before it commenced rather than 30 minutes after like the Australians. When the second live fire exercise was held the next day closer to New Zealand it was able to launch its Seasprite helicopter to observe the ships. Luckily HMNZS Aotearoa was returning from Antarctica and able to take over station from the Te Kaha south of Tasmania (allowing it to return and replenish) and so followed the ships re-entering Australias EEZ and loitering 160 nautical miles east of Hobart. Australia by contrast has been relying on maritime patrol aircraft for intermittent monitoring and hasn't had any naval assets available to shadow their progress.
 
Halcyon66 said:
Also didn't realise that only a nuclear sub can follow another nuclear sub, didn't realise there was an etiquette to it all.
Click to expand...
Has nothing to do with etiquette, and everything to do with performance.

A freaking 19kton Ohio-class can exceed 25 knots for weeks on end. USS San Francisco was reported at 33 knots when she ran into that seamount, and the SanFran was on an old 688 at the time.

Show me a diesel boat that can sustain 25 knots for more than half an hour.
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
A diesel sub would have been unable to keep up with them while hoovering up ELINT (such as FCS) and screw noise while Frigates don't have the endurance to follow them for more than a week or two before having to return to replenish.
Click to expand...
Airservices Australia deputy chief executive Peter Curran added that the warships were picked up on an international guard frequency, which air traffic controllers do not monitor but pilots do.
According to the heads of the government-owned organisation, a hazard alert was issued to all flights in the area within two minutes of the report at 10 am and the Australian Defence Force was notified shortly after.
Click to expand...
If you don't even monitor public channels, I doubt submarines can make any difference.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I don't think US ATC usually monitors GUARD unless an aircraft is having radio issues. GUARD is more for pilots to monitor.
Click to expand...
The aircraft emergency frequency (also known in the USA as Guard) is a frequency used on the aircraft band reserved for emergency communications for aircraft in distress. The frequencies are 121.5 MHz for civilian, also known as International Air Distress (IAD), International Aeronautical Emergency Frequency,[1] or VHF Guard,[1] and 243.0 MHz—the second harmonic of VHF guard—for military use, also known as Military Air Distress (MAD), NATO Combined Distress and Emergency Frequency,[1] or UHF Guard.[1] Earlier emergency locator transmitters (ELTs / EPIRBs) used the guard frequencies to transmit. As of February 1, 2009 satellite monitoring of the 121.5 and 243 MHz ELT (EPIRB) frequencies ceased, whereas an additional band from 406.0 to 406.1 MHz is now used exclusively by modern emergency locator transmitters (EPIRB).[1]


Guard frequencies can be used for distress calls, such as Mayday calls, and urgency calls, such as Pan-pan calls.
form wiki
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom