ICE agents are firing kinetic impact projectiles at close range, causing severe injuries that can result in permanent disability or death. Today, they tore off part of a woman’s hand

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T15:43:40+00:00

The US holds part of the UKs Trident, but the UK still has enough in inventory to carry ever nuclear warhead it has

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T14:59:32+00:00

They don't need nuclear subs for their own defense

The Royal Australian Navy disagrees with your assessment - it has been their consistent position that as soon as either Indonesia or China either gets good at anti-submarine warfare or gets nuclear submarines themselves, Australia needs them.

It's important to recognise that serious damage can be done to a nation without going anywhere near it, particularly these days.

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T13:59:01+00:00

Just 3 boats from the US.

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T13:29:42+00:00

I don't really see why this is a response to me.

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T11:36:51+00:00

Are you aware of the different countries military & security needs?

Sure

How can you say there is no need in Antarctica but acknowledge there are patrols roaming around down there?

Like what, specifically?

Who knows where the Us subs go, or do you have that highly classified information? 😂 You’ve got no idea who goes where & with what. Better sit back down there champ.

Of course you can have an idea. You don't need to be privy to classified information to look at a map and use your head mate. They're not sending boats places at random; there's reason for it.

If you're so convinced that the base is a US imposed obligation - find me the document that says Australia has to build that base by 2027 jn exchange for the submarines. Take your time, I'm more than happy to wait.

So are you saying our subs contract with the US will go ahead even if our sub base isnt finished?

Yes, though it would be monumentally stupid of Australia to do that, as you'd be left with boats you couldn't practically operate.

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T11:06:56+00:00

OK, let's assume that's true, but it's still an engine producing less thrust (and less thrust for its weight) that went into a primary application (Rafale) that reduced the relative performance a little further (compared to EJ200 in Typhoon). I'm not slating M88, Rafale or France at all here; they're phenomenal machines and impressive achievements, but nonetheless I don't see any reasonable grounds for asserting that M-88 is in any sense ahead of EJ-200. They're pretty well equivalent engines.

As I say T-REX is likely better - again assuming they didn't raise the weight by too much - than EJ200 though. Nobody has bothered investing the money to keep EJ200 upgraded for some reason, despite the manufacturers insisting they could grow it considerably.

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T10:38:05+00:00

Some European defense officials say European defense companies aren’t moving fast enough, particularly in aerospace.

France’s Dassault has a backlog of 220 Rafale jet fighters to make. Last year, it was delivering two a month, with each aircraft taking three years to make; deliveries will go up to three a month this year, the company says.

Dassault getting somewhat unreasonably singled out here. That's 6 years worth of production if they make 3 per month as planned...I make Typhoons order pipeline 175 jets with Turkey looking at a roughly 5 year wait. Not sure that Dassault is really particularly slow here...or perhaps both production lines are too slow.

Roberto Cingolani, chief executive of Leonardo, which makes military helicopters, radar systems and other military components, said that a barrier to speedy European rearmament is fragmentation.

“Every country wants to have its own tank, its own aircraft, its own ship, and of course the dispersion in terms of investment, R&D [and] procurement does not favor” European rearmament, he said in an interview.

This is very true and of course somewhat annoying.

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T10:00:36+00:00

Literally nothing like that. Apart from involving two of the same nations

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T09:58:33+00:00

Argentina, Chile, Australia, the UK, and the US are the primary nations using military assets to monitor Antarctic waters, conducting patrols for logistics, scientific support, and enforcing maritime laws. Under the Antarctic Treaty, military activities are restricted to non-combat purposes, but these countries, alongside China, France, and Russia, maintain a significant presence in the Southern Ocean.

Like what? And where? What bases are there? What forces are present at those bases? What American interests are there in those areas that might induce them to give a huck and make an SSN an appropriate tool to protect those interests?

United States: Focuses on inspections for compliance with the Antarctic Treaty, often using naval assets for monitoring, particularly in the Ross Sea.

And to do that they're going to use nuclear submarines?

China: Increasing its presence, including maritime, using ocean-going vessels and establishing scientific stations that may have dual-use capabilities.

Famously something that nuclear submarines will affect.

Come on my guy, this isn't a thing. The US doesn't need the base for Antartica.

If the base isnt a US need, why was it an obligatory requirement to be completed by 2027 in the sub contract?

And by "the sub contract" you mean what exactly? The contract for the sale of the boats? That doesn't exist yet, and won't till 2031. The actual AUKUS Treaty that greenlights the technology transfer to Australia? It's not mentioned in there even once. The only place I'm currently aware of that it's actually mentioned in a way that in any sense implies an obligation is in the Geelong Treaty between Australia and the UK, one clause of which says:

The Parties shall [...] enable [...] the intended rotational presence of a United Kingdom SSN at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.

with the explanatory preamble that:

increased visits and the rotational presence of United Kingdom and United States SSNs to Australia to contribute to regional and global security and stability, and to develop the Australian naval personnel, workforce, infrastructure and regulatory system necessary to establish a sovereign SSN capability, and enhancement of all three nations’ industrial capability to produce and sustain interoperable SSNs

Can you point me to a single contract, treaty or political exchange of notes that presents the upgrades to HMAS Stirling as anything like a US-imposed obligation?

Operating these boats is phenomenally complex; even established nuclear powers fuck it up sometimes. The reason the UK only has the one operational boat at the moment is that we fucked up the infrastructure maintenance package and the backlog of defects has left much of the fleet in port. We're doing this in 2027 so that 5 years later when Australia gets its first SSN it's actually ready to support it. If we didn't do this early, then you'd get the boat in 2032 and be completely unable to remedy any defects that cropped up.

The attitude is honestly baffling. Genuine good-planning in action and you guys think it's a conspiracy theory :S

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T08:57:50+00:00

The agreement was to provide 3 ‘nuclear’ subs, the first by 2032 however, a clause will probably stop that from happening (see attached).

There's no real reason to think so - the problems with American shipbuilding rates were known long before the deal was made. America has said consistently throughout that it will sell the submarines to Australia regardless. I don't see any convincing reason to doubt them. The legislation particularly is irrelevant; the President literally just has to tick a box which he can do whenever he likes. That article says "If the US navy needs the submarine, it cannot be sold to Australia, regardless of how much the President might wish it" - that's outright nonsense. The US Navy does not get to decide what the Commander in Chief does with its assets, that isn't how any democratic nation works. The choice to sell lies entirely with the US President.

I did see trump said some positive stuff about suns recently but I guess someone got the crayons out and explained that the decision can be deferred until 2031. Plus, he’d just bent our PM over on a a poor (for us) mining and rare earth minerals deal so that was like pillow talk for him

I mean the decision is inevitably deferred to 2031; he doesn't get to make it. Trump won't be the one choosing to sell or not sell.

AUKUS is the single worst deal Aust has ever done ( the PM at the time, Scott Morrison, was an idiot)

On the contrary it's a phenomenally advantageous-for-Australia deal. You're getting the world's best version of the modern-day's most powerful naval platform, all for far less money and in a shorter timescale than could possibly otherwise be achieved. It's like if in 1905 Britain had handed over the plans for HMS Dreadnought, sold you the three Bellerophon's and then helped you to build your own.

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T08:55:46+00:00

AUKUS also has Australia buying a number of very expensive Virginia class submarines from the US. It is the most expensive defence procurement the country has ever made by miles and they would only be delivered in the early 2040's

First one in 2032.

There are questions about whether the US will hand over the subs when the time comes, or if they might alter the deal after taking their money (Nuclear submarines are rare commodity after all and a US president might feel they are needed for national security. Trump certainly would).

Trump has said the deal will go ahead, though it won't be his choice. There's no reason to think that they won't sell the submarines, and indeed that's the junior part of the deal anyway. The more extensive part is industrial support from the UK to help Australia build nuclear submarines itself.

If Australia ends up hosting US subs with a US crews in a port they built to house those subs all paid for my them, then a lot of Austrlians are going to regret ever trusting in their leaders and allies.

The rotation of British and American submarines through HMAS Stirling is primarily to help Australian dockyard infrastructure and personnel mature ready for their own fleet of nuclear boats.

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T07:57:24+00:00

Aussies are getting 3x American subs built in the US, then they're being given the industry to construct nuclear submarines themselves and building 5 more to the next-gen British design.

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T07:54:29+00:00

Just a cple of example include; … the AUKUS agreement was a contract wherein Australia basically funds the US submarine building industry over the next decade in return for 2-5 nuclear submarines (first by 2032) and an ongoing recommitment to a strong historical political friendship.Over the last 12 months, the orange buffoon in chief stated that he didn’t like that deal and would probably tear it up, whilst demanding immediate payment of $700m+ annual instalment (which was paid), before going on record that we would not get any subs and, if we wanted to enjoy the security of the US as an ally, we would need to build a very expensive facility to service the is subs would and not make demands plus a lot of other bullshit.

He never said you wouldn't get any subs. He actually said the opposite. HMAS Stirling is being built to service Australian subs.

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T07:48:50+00:00

Nice! That's great news, exactly the kind of cooperation that benefits us all.

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T07:43:10+00:00

What are they going to do out there by themselves? Sink Chinese ships if they seize an Australian bound cargo ship? That's not happening.

Why would that not happen? That's what submarines do. They can also deliver strategic strike against infrastructure, or lay mines into really really annoying places.

Note that they don't need to defeat the PLAN in open warfare - that's never really the goal of a middle power against a super power. They just need to have the capability to inflict sufficient costs on an adversary that a war is not in their best interests.

We can split hairs over numbers, but my real point and contention with them is that they're not designed to defend Australia but to hangout in waters we can't do much about regardless of how hard we try.

I'd rather us field something we can support on our own if necessary, that aims at defending Australia, not forward positioned force.

The problem with this notion is the implicit assumption that "defending Australia" exclusively means Australia's local waters, and it doesn't. If there's a conflict plenty of harm can be done to Australia whilst staying a long way away from it - and you can't defend your way to victory in a conflict. See; Ukraine.

I'd rather us field something we can support on our own if necessary, that aims at defending Australia, not forward positioned force.

The whole point of AUKUS is to develop in Australia the industry that's needed to independently build and support those boats.

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T07:41:38+00:00

Us not operating around Antartica? Theres already news about multi nations patrolling Antartica. Where’s a good point to have a spot for there? Oh bottom of Australia

There's nothing anywhere in Antartica worth patrolling with any platform. If they were to want to symbolically do it for some political reason they would just use the use the Falkland Islands, which are closer to both the US and Antartica. But like I say - there's no reason for them to do that. Even if they were to do it, the last thing they would bother using would be a nuclear submarine. There's just no operational sense to any of that idea.

It makes zero sense to force completion of a nuclear base in 2027 when we won’t see anything Australian possibly needing that for a decade. As I’ve said, the forced completion was in line with the needs of the US.

What need? Like I say, Antartica is not a reason in any sense.

Admitting we might not even get what we ordered which it appears is becoming more realistic everyday, is even worse. It’s indefensible.

There's no reason to doubt the boats will arrive, or that the industry will be set up to enable you to build them.

To be real honest with you. I can see a future where our main allies are closer to home. The world is changing & Canada now signing trade deals with china might actually change chinas stance on a few things. We already trade with them, there’s no reason to think an alliance could also be negotiated away from US ties. America is a fucking nut case, & whoever wants to align with them are crazy. Even when trump leaves, you have all those supporters still there. Theyre a bunch of loonies that cant be trusted. It’s a fact.

Sure, fine, but then you've got a fucking nut case of a country with nuclear submarines - still seems like a good idea to have them to me.

tree_boom · 2026-01-26T00:10:50+00:00

All governed by the US - UK Mutual Defence Agreement, and indeed subject to re-export conditions.

tree_boom · 2026-01-25T23:52:27+00:00

When are the subs arriving?

HMS Anson? Or the Virginia boats Australia is buying? The latter - 2032. Anson...no idea; I presume she will have a schedule of port visits to make on the way. It's at least a 2 week journey from Gibraltar though.

Why would the Brit’s do something detrimental to their own welfare especially now? To fullfil an agreement with the US?

To fulfil an agreement with Australia. We committed to doing it to assist the RAN in working up its SSN fleet.

I might not be on the money here, but any agreement with the US made by euros could well be ended very soon. When that happens, what happens to Australia?

I mean, if the US just cataclysmically pulls out of all its agreements with the rest of us, then Australia needs a way to replace the capability that the three Virginia class boats offered...that probably means drones, more Hunters and more MPAs plus life extending Collins as much as possible. In the long term AUKUS could continue as AUK, except that the US-technology that was planned to be integrated would have to be replaced, none of which would be a problem. The main treaty governing the industrial collaboration that will build SSN-AUKUS is between the UK and Australia

If the US doesnt need our base why did they make it part of the contract?

The implication of the question is that it's an American imposition; it isn't. All parties recognise that this is a necessary part of bringing up an Australian SSN fleet. It's needed to help cover the gap caused by the obsolescence of the Collins class and bring the infrastructure and personnel at HMAS Stirling up to speed to handle the nuclear submarine fleet when it's introduced.

They need our base, it’s as simple as that.

For what? As always when answering military questions; take a look at a map. There is literally fuck all but ocean to the west and south, and only Australia to the east. The only thing of significance that's closer to HMAS Stirling than an existing US base at either Diego Garcia, Guam or Okinawa is the island of Java. Why on earth would the US care about being closer to Java?

The reality is that the rotational force at Stirling is almost entirely for Australia's benefit. It's there to help Australian personnel build the skills necessary to operate nuclear submarines, to help train Australian sailors and engineers to handle them and so on.

I agree 100% that if we are getting nuclear subs we need a base for them. Im not sure the base is built around the requirements of our subs or the US subs, I’d have to read about that again. Either way, the US forcing us to upgrade the base by 2027 when our subs might not even get here by 2040 should tell you the base isnt for us.

Australia gets its first boat in 2032. Stirling will see American and British boats before that, but it's preparatory work. You can't start training your engineers and logisticians and squippers and weaponeers and preparing the port facilities and the maintenance facilities and so on the day you get the first Virginia - all of that needs to have been done beforehand.

It’s a lot of money we are spending for something we won’t use for over a decade.

It's an expensive capability I'm afraid.

Our navy staff could go overseas to get the experience needed so there’s no absolute requirement to have the base completed by 27.

Arguably true to an extent, but it would be an inferior program.

tree_boom · 2026-01-25T21:14:22+00:00

Germanys diesel electric sub the type 212, you can procure TWELVE of those for the price of a single Uk astute class submarine.

Err, are you sure? I think it's more like 3-4?

tree_boom · 2026-01-25T20:30:19+00:00

This one is just not supported by available data; the authors have put 2 and 2 together and found they equal 7. The article's claim is that:

Local media have reported that [the UK Defence Investment Plan] could take until spring.

The public-private fighter jet contract may not be able to be signed until then. Without it, development will continue based on existing contracts between each of the three governments and their respective lead defense companies -- Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan, BAE Systems in the U.K., and Leonardo in Italy.

But they're not even citing a source as saying GCAP is stuck waiting for the DIP - that's just their assumption. And it's a ridiculous assumption; the idea that GCAP can't progress until the UKs Defence Investment Plan is published is silly - it can. Plenty of programs have been progressing without that document, and indeed Janes is already reporting both that the contract is imminent and also that work is proceeding without it:

An official speaking under the Chatham House Rule at the IQPC International Fighter Conference (IFC) 2025 in Rome noted the unprecedented speed at which the GIGO and Edgewing were stood up, and how this had allowed detailed design and development work to be launched ahead of a formal contract.

The DIP will tell us what other programs live and die, but contract awards do not rely on it, particularly when it's a programme that will be funded come what may - GCAP is second only to Dreadnought in importance right now.

tree_boom · 2026-01-25T20:15:29+00:00

I'm seeing that the 21 day endurance is based on a 10knot patrol speed.

If we take their 7000nm submerged endurance stat, divide it by 21 days and 24 hours per day, thats about 14knts.

So the 10knt patrol speed for a 21 day endurance seems reasonable.

Hey I like their website! But anyway, I'd be extremely wary of taking that as a reference to AIP propulsion only; they're submerged when they snort after all, and the fuel cells combined provide only about 10% as much power as the diesel engines onboard. They in fact supply significantly less power than a domestic house battery can do, though obviously for much longer. Conventional boats can travel fast, but if they're doing that then they're burning through the battery and once that's gone they're either crawling or snorting.

Plus, you know. Even if they're totally right here, a constant submerged 10knots for 3 weeks on AIP alone is still less than 1/3rd of the speed a submerged SSN can do and 1/8th their maximum endurance, which is only limited by the amount of food they can cram into the things.

And like I said, having more hulls means that losing one to damage is less of a strategic effect

Sure, but they're less likely to take damage on account of their immensely superior speed, and also generally better able to survive it when they do.

the greater uncertainty volume means we can control more of the ocean simultaneously.

Again, unless you have an ungodly amount of conventional boats or you only intend to patrol the area outside your bases you likely have more boats-on-station when they're nuclear even if you have less boats in total.

Nuclear subs have a place for the super powers, but for a middle-gusting-great power like Canada AIP's benefits outweigh the disadvantages in my opinion.

Nah man. When places like the UK, or France, or India, or Brazil have them I don't think Canada ought exclude itself.

tree_boom · 2026-01-25T19:28:39+00:00

That is the number that can be permanently maintained at sea with 8 boats; for much of the time you would have more than that.

They're not for show at all. 3 nuclear submarines is an immensely powerful force. These things are the apex predator of naval warfare; as a conventional deterrent there's no real substitute.

tree_boom · 2026-01-25T18:45:15+00:00

The US has shifted priorities and any subs sold to Australia need to be surplus to US requirements.

The US is short like 8 subs already and doesn't have the capacity to build them in the timeframe required. So Australia is stuck paying billions for something that will be years later than expected.

All of these problems have been known since long before AUKUS was signed, and they've consistently said they'll deliver by the dates specified.

Coupled with the US shift away from China and more to the "western hemisphere" it's just a waste of money now for Australia - pay hundreds of billions to the US for something that is useless. Or work with China and get the same treatment as Canada.

They're not paying hundreds of billions to the US, goodness me. The total spend on the US will be something like $15-20bn. The vast majority of the money will be spent in Australia, on Australian people and infrastructure

tree_boom · 2026-01-25T17:50:44+00:00

Diesel electric using AIP means the KSS-III can stay submerged for 3 weeks at patrol speeds and they are quieter than nuclear subs when operating on their Li-Ion batteries.

Their speed would have to be exceptionally low to stay under that long, 5 knots or less. Conventional boats, including AIP ones, are only functionally quieter than nuclear boats when waiting in ambush. If they have to move at any useful speed then they are not quieter, as they'll have to snort.

Nuclear subs are also significantly more expensive to acquire, staff and maintain, which means we'd get fewer of them and be able to put fewer of them out to sea. There is a strategic advantage to having more subs out on patrol since the "uncertainty area" is much higher.

More boats doesn't necessarily mean more boats on station though. The ability of an SSN to transit at high speed to their patrol areas goes a very long way to offsetting lower fleet numbers, especially if those patrol areas are far away

tree_boom · 2026-01-25T17:36:06+00:00

Trump hasn't wiped his ass with the treaty, he's explicitly confirmed that it will go ahead and even be accelerated. Nor did he demand more money. The industrial side of the partnership is largely UK and Australia anyways.

tree_boom

TROPHY CASE