Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Australia has requested that three European companies submit their proposals for its future submarines project, SEA 1000, in a move to strengthen its fleet amidst increasing military expansion by China into South East Asia.
Defence minister Stephen Smith has said DCNS, Navantia and ThyssenKrupp subsidiary HDW, were invited to provide information on conventional submarine designs for the new project that is likely to run through the next 30 years.
The new vessels will not be nuclear propelled but are expected to be larger and more capable than the six existing locally-built Collins submarines, which are currently facing manufacturing and design problems.
Additionally, the country has also entered into a contract with Babcock to inform engineering development of the future submarines by studying the establishment of land-based propulsion systems test facility.
The project is a major national undertaking, outlined in the 2009 defence white paper, to acquire 12 new future submarines on the condition that they will be assembled in South Australia.
The white paper also revealed that more than $70bn will be spent over the next two decades to build submarines to bolster its military capabilities.
Australia has already budgeted an estimated A$65bn for the ongoing construction of new amphibious assault carriers, stealth fighter aircraft, tanks, helicopters and missile destroyers.
The country has also budgeted for the procurement of up to 100 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters, which is double what Japan is seeking to purchase.
The Australian Government is expected to provide further details on the progress of the project in 2012.
This is what Canada should do then we could take some of the burden off the US but we would need Nuclear powered arctic capable fast attack subs (SSN)..pretty much the later gen of Los Angeles Class 668i subs and A 100 F-35 instead of our current orderof 65 would also help in NORAD air defense and we could station a few up in the arctic for faster response times.
If the US DoD needs to cut the budget and still needs money to fund new projects then selling some of your older but refitted (SSN) Subs and Destroyers to Canada and Australia would mean that High end ships and subs go to close allies and also gives the DoD mthe money it needs to build the new next gen stuff.
I amsure the british would be interested in one purchasing and would pay to Refit one of your Nimitiz class carriers and they already planned to buy F-35C carrier version and it would make sense since it would provide the EU with more capability and gives you some extra $$$ when the Gerald R. Ford class comes into service
In another thread I saw a person mention something about the US becoming a "second-rate world power" like the UK. And it got me thinking... how bad could that actually be?
Most people in the UK seem to enjoy the same standard of living that we enjoy. They have cell phones, computers, running water, electricity, etc. Yes, they've even got McDonalds and Starbucks and Chipotle! I get the feeling that a lot of people think anywhere that's not the US is some sort of backwards dystopia, but a lot of countries really aren't that different from us in terms of standards of living. Hell, some are better.
Thoughts?
For me standard of living means how closely the freedoms I can exercise meet those intended by the authors of our Consitution. We are already second rate in that regard.
As to being second rate as a world power, do you mean militarily, economically, the removal of the US dollar as the world reserve currency, what?
You may be the first person I've ever seen describe standard of living in relation to fast food establishments. Seems shortsighted at best, YMMV.
China would not be a match for "the West." As a "second-rate" power, we would still have a lot of "second-rate" friends. Together, we'd still be a first-rate power.
In fact, we'd probably stregthen our position in regards to China because we could use our savings on defense spending to invest in building a stronger economy.
This is a lot of blather. Western Europe remained free in the Cold War because U.S. military spending kept them that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
See; that's the thinking that goes with being more than just a little arrogant about having 300 million population to foster a burdgeoning military complex that rules your life and no one elses.
Who would be those enemies that these other countries should spent more to defend ourselves from. Has there been some foreign incursions to any of these other countries to support your claims that countries like Canada and the U.K. et al and, oh dang; throw in France for good measure, have been defended by your military spending?
Would those hypothetical enemies have been created by those other countries foreign policies or just yours; which would make them your enemies only, wouldn't it?
Canada as an excellant example would only have been under threat of invasion for the last 50 years if Russia or Communist China were going through our country to get to you. Think it's feasible; when all of you tend to agree "no one dare invade us 'cause we're all armed with our Colts".
Given that last little belief; your 2nd amendment rights, you all cling so tight to; I guess you didn't really need a huge military to go swanning all over the globe invading places as a defensive tool but rather as an expansionist tool to further your foreign interests, correct? ? ?
WWII and perhaps Korea being the last legitimate conflicts your military have been involved in as protagonists; perhaps you haven't needed such a huge military to have contributed to the various peace keeping missions.
That's the interesting thing about your position with regards to your fears and indoctrination perpetrated upon you by your government and it's duplicity with your military complex. You are incapable of thinking in any other context other than "we've always been right and morally correct in the positions we've adopted regarding our foreign policies".
WRONG!!!! You've gotten away with it because you're the toughest kid on the block and you know what that's called don't you?
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,460,349 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb
China would not be a match for "the West." As a "second-rate" power, we would still have a lot of "second-rate" friends. Together, we'd still be a first-rate power.
In fact, we'd probably stregthen our position in regards to China because we could use our savings on defense spending to invest in building a stronger economy.
Not if our NATO- and UN-hating conservative "friends" have anything to say about it!
In another thread I saw a person mention something about the US becoming a "second-rate world power" like the UK. And it got me thinking... how bad could that actually be?
Most people in the UK seem to enjoy the same standard of living that we enjoy. They have cell phones, computers, running water, electricity, etc. Yes, they've even got McDonalds and Starbucks and Chipotle! I get the feeling that a lot of people think anywhere that's not the US is some sort of backwards dystopia, but a lot of countries really aren't that different from us in terms of standards of living. Hell, some are better.
Thoughts?
Well, as much of the world has had to learn English to get along...............
...you had better brush up on your Chinese, and possibly, Hindi.
This is a lot of blather. Western Europe remained free in the Cold War because U.S. military spending kept them that way.
I fully expected you to disagree with that very response as you've trotted that, or something like it, out every time you get a response to: "the others had better start paying their share" bullc**p!
Actually if McDonnell Douglas and Boeing want to make some money now would be a good time to send up reps to Canada and offer up some Block II F-15 strike Eagles and upgraded Block II Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as a Stop Gap till the F-35 is at full volume production. Also if the F-15SE is still planned to go into a production model then Canada may also Pre-Order a few of those also.
By the time the F-35 comes out based on the new hot spot findings on the F-35 and slowed production Canada is ar risk of having no fighter planes since the whole CF-18 fleet is due to retired by 2017-2018 and 2015 was when the phase in of the F-35 was to take place while the F-18 was to begin to be phased out.
As it stands we have no back up deal in place and if the F-35 is cancelled we would be in trouble and scrambling for new planes
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
