What's new

Australia and New Zealand Military Thread, Economy , News and Updates

jhungary

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
19,294
Reaction score
387
Country
China
Location
Australia
I wonder why nobody care to make this thread, Australia is the pivot between Asia and Pacific, anyway, here goes

Austal receives $US322m US Navy order

Austal says the US Navy has exercised its option for an eighth and ninth ship, collectively worth $US322 million, under its joint high speed vessel contract with the ship builder.

The order takes to $US1.45 billion the value of work awarded under the contract.

"The options increase Austal's total order backlog to nearly $2.2 billion, with shipbuilding work secured for the US operation through to mid-2016 and to mid-2015 for the Australian shipyard," the company said in a statement.

Austal's chief executive Andrew Bellamy said the new JHSV contract options contributed to stability and future growth.

"These substantial, multi-year projects provide predictable revenue and workload," he said.

"That enables us to plan our production approach to deliver high quality, affordable ships in the most efficient way possible and to make and implement medium and long-term strategies."

Austal was awarded the construction contract for the first 103-metre JHSV in November 2008, with options for nine additional vessels between FY09 and FY13.

The 10-ship program is potentially worth more than $US1.6 billion.
Austal shares were off three cents, or 1.72 per cent, to $1.71 at 9am after the company posted a shock $3 million first half loss after the market closed on Friday.

Austal receives $US322m US Navy order - The West Australian
 
EF88: Australia’s Next-Generation Assault Rifle

13 Januari 2013

EF88_1.jpg

Top: EF88 with 16” barrel shown with Ase Utra suppressor, Trijicon TA44SR-10 1.5×16 ACOG, and folding foregrip. Centre: EF88 with 20” barrel, fitted with Trijicon 4×32 BAC ACOG, Madritsch ML40AUS grenade launcher, and Thales Australia-designed quadrant sight with mounted Trijicon RMR. Bottom: F88SA2 (current Australian Defence Force service rifle) with RM Equipment M203PI grenade launcher, Knight’s Armament Company quadrant sight, and standard 1.5x ring sight. (photo : Rogue Adventurer)


In September 2012, I had the opportunity to visit Lithgow (New South Wales, Australia) at the invitation of Thales Australia in order to conduct a Test and Evaluation (T&E) of their Enhanced F88 Assault Rifle. This weapon is being developed for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) under the Land 125 Phase 3C program. Pending the results of Department of Defence testing, this rifle will be in the early stages of manufacturing in 2014. A version of the EF88, with several minor differences, is being marketed globally by Thales as the F90, drawing directly on the Australian small arms experience. The EF88 is the latest iteration of the long-serving F88 Austeyr; this updated weapon has been designed and produced more than 20 years after the first F88 rifles entered service in Australia, and over 35 years since the Steyr AUG on which it is based was first designed in Austria. Fundamentally, the EF88 remains much the same as its predecessors: a bullpup-configuration selective fire weapon, chambered for the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge, short-stroke piston operated and firing from a closed bolt.

Despite core similarities, the EF88 features a number of improvements designed to make the weapon more user-friendly and more combat effective. Many of these changes were inspired by a combination of operational user input and Defence specifications, whilst others were entirely Thales Australia’s own concepts. In fact, Thales Australia made a corporate decision to exceed the specifications laid out by Defence in Land 125, and have upgraded their operations at Lithgow from ‘build-to-print’ manufacturing to encompass a true Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) capability.

A lot of the experience that made this possible was gained during the F88SA2 program. As some readers may be aware, the F88SA2 has actually been made in two different series. The F88SA2 first saw service in 2009 and sported a two-tone colour change, a longer upper rail, and a bespoke side bracket to allow the fitting of a Night Aiming Device (NAD) or flashlight. The 2009 series experienced a technical issue, occasionally failing to fully lock with a full magazine after being manually cocked. Many users had taken to only loading 28 or 29 cartridges in each magazine as a way of combating this issue. In 2010, Thales made a series of reliability enhancements to the F88SA2 executed through a series of tolerance changes, more stringent gauging, and minor design changes. This experience, both in updating the F88 and F88SA1 to F88SA2 standard, as well as in refining manufacturing processes for the F88SA2 2010 series, has contributed to Thales Australia’s capability to produce a new assault rifle which significantly exceeds Defence’s stated requirements.

(See full article RogueAdventurer)

From my previous post:
Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...t-generation-assault-rifle.html#ixzz2L2T51b2a
 
Lightning fighter veers clear of lightning - Yahoo!7

Lightning fighter veers clear of lightning

Australia's proposed new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) combat aircraft can't fly near lightning storms or easily turn to evade enemy fighters or missiles.

US Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, who heads the US military's $16 billion JSF program, admits the F-35 Lightning II jet can't fly within 40km of a lightning storm because its fuel tanks could ignite.

"Will this problem occur in the future? No, because we have the known fixes for it and we will fix it," Lt-Gen Bogdan told ABC TV on Monday.

The Lockheed Martin JSF is a fifth-generation combat aircraft featuring stealth capability - low visibility to radar - and advanced sensors to detect enemy aircraft.

But the program has experienced technical problems, rising costs and delays.

Australia is looking to acquire up to 100 JSFs to form the backbone of the RAAF air combat fleet.

So far, the federal government has firmly committed to just two.

But in last year's budget the government deferred signing a deal for the next 12 aircraft for two years.

A JSF critic, US defence analyst Pierre Sprey, told the ABC the JSF was inferior to the widely used F-16 - an aircraft dating from the early 1970s which remains in production.

"We have an airplane that can't turn to escape fighters, can't turn to escape missiles, sluggish in acceleration because it's so big and fat and draggy and doesn't have enough motor for the weight," he said.

"My prediction is the airplane will become such an embarrassment that it will be cancelled before 500 airplanes are built."

General Bogdan maintains the JSF is a formidable aeroplane.

"I have no doubt if you went head-to-head with this airplane with any other airplane in the world with the capabilities that I know it has, it will do very, very well," he said.

General Bogdan also said the costs of JSF aircraft were decreasing.

"I expect and will demand that the future lots will continue on that trend to cost less and less," he said.

Responding to the television program, a spokeswoman for Defence Minister Stephen Smith said earlier reviews of Australia's air combat needs concluded the JSF was the preferred aircraft.
"Deferring our project by two years reduces our exposure to increasing costs and provides increased time for resolution of the remaining technical challenges," the spokeswoman said.
 
Come on, where are you? I like to see more Aussie and Newzea presence in the SC sea :partay:
 
Come on, where are you? I like to see more Aussie and Newzea presence in the SC sea :partay:

Wrong Continent & Australia is one of China largest trading partner. :P

Japanese Media Now Openly Talking about Japan-Australia Soryu Deal
18 February 2013

Soryu+JMSDF.jpg

The Soryu class submarine has an overall length of 84m, beam of 9.1m and depth of 10.3m. It has a surfaced displacement of 2,950t and submerged displacement of 4,200t. The Soryu class submarines are armed with six 533-mm torpedo tubes for the Type 89 torpedoes and UGM-84 Harpoon missiles. The UGM-84 Harpoon has a range of over 124km and speed of 864km/h. The submarine is equipped with Stirling engines for increased propulsion performance and underwater endurance. (photo : Military Today)

Today the Nikkei featured an article (日) that raised once again the possibility of Japan transferring the technology underpinning the prized Soryu submarine to Australia. The article did not offer much additional detail about how the process from here is likely to unfold, although it did frame the technology transfer as part of a supposedly mutual desire to balance against Chinese naval activities. It nevertheless suggests that defense officials are still considering the plan and that the chances are good that something will come out of the process notwithstanding any domestic or international backlash. The main issue for the Japanese side likely revolves what level of information and access to provide to the Royal Australian Navy.

As for the back story, the process appeared to be initiated in May 2012 when a senior Australian official inspected the Soryu at the MSDF’s Kure Base in Hiroshima Prefecture. Then in June 2012 the issue was further discussed during a visit to Australia by Admiral Masahiko Sugimoto. Soon after that in July 2012 Rear-Admiral Rowan Moffitt, head of the Future Submarine Program, and Dr Alexander Zelinsky, the Chief Defense Scientist, traveled to Japan to further inspect the Soryu. Then in September 2012 Defense Minister Stephen Smith confirmed that Australia was indeed considering at least the submarine’s propulsion systems as part of a technology deal.

All things being equal it would seem like this deal is likely to be done as it offers strategic benefits for both sides. However, both sides may still need to be somewhat flexible as the two sides have bottom lines that may stand in the way of deep collaboration. First, the Australian side will demand that the subs be built in Australia to enhance Australia’s shipbuilding industry centred on Adelaide, as well as to keep Australian tax dollars and jobs onshore. While Japan in December 2011 relaxed its arms export restrictions, which has allowed this deal to be considered in the first place, these restrictions were however ostensibly relaxed to allow Japanese defense manufacturers to engage in the joint development of sophisticated weapons systems with other partners. A simple one-way transfer of technology was not necessarily envisaged, and in any respect, the technology that gave birth to the Soryu has been nurtured over the last 30 to 40 years in Japan and the Japanese government, MHI, and Kawasaki are not likely to let go of the full suite of technologies and design specifications without considerable benefits being extracted in return. If Japan was unable to extract any offsets from the transfer of the technology then it might get cold feet at the last minute and back out of the deal. More likely is that the two sides might only come to an agreement on a partial transfer, perhaps of AIP system technologies only. This would still be a big deal nevertheless, especially coming on the back of similar hardware-related collaborative developments in the UK-Japan defense relationship, and with something similar with India surely not being too far away.

See ful article (Japan Security Watch)


RAAF's Top Guns Train with USAF's Best
20 February 2013

Blue+Agressor.bmp

F-16C Blue Aggressor squadron (photo : charles.agnew55)

The United States Air Force (USAF) F-16 jets returned to RAAF Base Williamtown on Sunday the 17th of February to participate in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Fighter Combat Instructors course (FCI).

The Commander of Air Combat Group, Air Commodore (AIRCDRE) Tony Grady, explained that the five-month FCI course takes RAAF’s best fast jet pilots, Air Combat Officers and Weapon Systems Officers and develops their skills in air combat tactics.

“To be a Fighter Combat Instructor, you need to have attained the highest level of leadership as a fighter pilot to even qualify for this course, so the training is very highly regarded,” AIRCDRE Grady said.

The USAF F-16 Viper Squadron, are some of the best pilots in the world and assisted with the last FCI Course in 2011. Their participation in this course offers the opportunity for our aircrew to train with the world’s best.

“The culmination of the course will be conducted from RAAF Base Darwin and RAAF Base Tindal for Exercise Aces North,” AIRCDRE Grady said.

RAAF F/A-18A/B Hornets and F/A-18F Super Hornets will also be supported by the E-7A Wedgetail and the KC-30 Multi-Role Tanker Transport.

USAF F-16 visits will follow RAAF Base Williamtown procedures to reduce noise impacts for the Port Stephens community, and the majority of fast jet flying will be conducted in over water areas east of RAAF Base Williamtown.

(RAAF)
 
@ Viet this is for you

Gillard wants South China Sea code of conduct - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Gillard wants South China Sea code of conduct


Prime Minister Julia Gillard says Australia wants to see a code of conduct for resolving disputes over the South China Sea.

Territorial disputes over the South China Sea have overshadowed the East Asia Summit in Cambodia's capital Phnom Penh, where Ms Gillard is meeting regional leaders.

She has already spoken to Japan's prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, and China's leader, Wen Jiabao.

China has been reluctant to commit to starting formal talks on a legally binding code of conduct over the sea.

Ms Gillard says Australia does not take sides in the territorial disputes but argues they have to be resolved peacefully.

"We believe it is in everybody's interest that issues in the South China Sea are managed in a peaceful way in accordance with international law; that's Australia's perspective," she said.

"We do believe that a code of conduct would assist with making sure that any issues in the South China Sea, any conduct there, could be managed in accordance with the code, that is, that the rules and manner of responses would be predictable and knowable.

"That's Australia's position. It's been one of long standing and it's one we'll continue to argue for."

Ms Gillard says it is important to Australia that the issue is resolved.

"We are talking about an area of the world that our shipping needs to go through to take our goods to the world," she said.

During her meeting with Mr Wen, Ms Gillard presented the Chinese leader with a photo of former Labor prime minister Gough Whitlam meeting China's chairman Mao Zedong in 1973.

The gift, signed by Mr Whitlam, is to mark the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two nations.

It is likely to be the last meeting between Ms Gillard and Mr Wen before China's new administration comes in next year.

Free trade



Audio: Listen to Louise Yaxley's report (PM)


Ms Gillard also says Australia will take any opportunity to push for free trade in the region.

United States president Barack Obama this morning launched the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which involves Canada, Mexico as well as countries on the western side of the Pacific.

Ms Gillard says Mr Obama is being ambitious about its scope and he wants the deal in place by October next year.

Trade Minister Craig Emerson, who is also in Phnom Penh, said Mr Obama seemed set to use his second term in office to push for the deal.

"The president of the United States was very enthusiastic and highly ambitious for the Trans-Pacific Partnership," he said.

"As a second-term president of the United States, it is clear that he wants to get this deal done and, indeed, he wants it to be a high-quality, truly liberalising agreement.

"The importance of that is that it creates more jobs and better jobs in the region and beyond."

Australia is also involved in another push to remove regional trade barriers.

Ms Gillard says Australia is keen to be a part of any group that can reduce tariffs and smash trade barriers.

"It makes sense to be involved in both and to be maximising our efforts in both," she said.

Malaria

During a speech at the summit, Ms Gillard promised $1 million for more work to combat malaria in the region.

She also emphasised that Australia had recently promised $100 million over four years to help cut death rates.

The leaders at the summit will make a declaration committing to a regional response to the growing threat of drug-resistant malaria.

Ms Gillard says Australia is supporting a regional alliance to fight the problem.

"Malaria is a disease which disproportionately affects the poor," she said.

"In fact, in 2010 it was estimated 42,000 people in our region of the world died from malaria. Disturbingly, we are seeing the emergence of drug-resistant strains of malaria."

Ms Gillard has also promised $50 million to crack down on human trafficking.

The money will go towards helping investigators and prosecutors catch people who are exploiting others and force them into work or prostitution.

Cambodia is one of seven South East Asian nations to benefit from the funding.

"Trafficking in persons is a dreadful evil where people are forced into exploitative labour situations, and tragically, young people in particular are forced into prostitution," Ms Gillard said.

"The program I am announcing today will enable us to work with a number of our neighbours to reduce trafficking in people."

Topics:world-politics, foreign-affairs, international-aid-and-trade, federal-government, cambodia, australia, japan, china

First posted Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:47pm AEDT

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/connect-asia/australia-should-stay-out-of-south-china-sea-dispute-says-carr/987932

Australia should stay out of South China Sea dispute, says Carr



Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr has rebuffed suggestions by prominent Australian think tank the Lowy Institute that Australia should try to broker a solution to the South China Sea dispute.
.









Australia should stay out of South China Sea dispute, says Carr (Credit: ABC)
.

Correspondent: Stephanie March

Speaker: Bob Carr, Australian Foreign Minister

MARCH: Bob Carr has been Australia's Foreign Minister for four months and is due to give a speech later today about the direction of Australia's foreign policy and overseas development assistance. He will focus on Australia's engagement in multi-lateral forums

CARR: I will be talking about Australia's commitment to the networks and our role in the UN, for example, or our role trying to solve problems with a couple of partners.

MARCH: But one problem he doesn't see Australia playing a lead role in solving is the dispute in the South China Sea. A prominent Australian think tank has suggested Canberra should try to broker a solution to the impasse involving China and a number of ASEAN nations but Bob Carr says that's not an option.

CARR: I don't think it is in Australia's interest to take on for itself a brokering role in territorial disputes in the South China Sea. I don't think that is remotely in our interest, I think we should adhere to the policy we have got of not supporting any one of the nations making competing territorial claims and reminding them all that we want it settled, because we have a stake in it - 60 percent of our trade goes through the South China Sea

MARCH: The dispute does seem to be at a critical juncture, what would you like to see happen?

CARR: We think a code of conduct is very useful and that is why we have taken a real interest in the work being done in ASEAN towards a set of ASEAN principals on the disputes registered in the South China Sea. Australia doesn't take a position with the competing territorial claims and I think that position is understood.

MARCH: In his speech later today Bob Carr will say that Australia's is already playing a key role in multi-lateral forums .

He says that role was diminished under the previous government... and that they need to be revived to help solve contemporary problems.

CARR: There are problems in the world that are only going to be resolved by mulit-lateralism, disarmament, whether it is implementing the nuclear non proliferation treaty or what we are attempting in the arms trade treaty I am very proud of Australian's sponsor ship of these are problems that can only be tackled by aust working with other nations.

MARCH: Is there anything australia can bring to the table that other nations cant?

CARR: I am fond of saying in these fora that Australia is not Europe or Australia is not america we are here in the Indian ocean in the Pacific, we have got our own perspective, we have a lot that interests the world, we have a working multicultural society, a keen interest in land management and environmental issues, the health of the oceans and a record of working hard for security and peace, a big commitment to Afghanistan for example and one of the world's best targeted and most generous aid budgets. This is Australia as a creative middle power and we are only going to achieve the things we by through multi lateral engagement

He insists Australia's move to spread itself further across the globe in these multi-lateral engagements... won't lead to resources being spread too thin.
 
@jhungary

Besides Japan, Australia is the country which can make headache to Beijing. Canberra possesses some sticks (giant land mass, emerging economic, military, diplomatic power, etc...) to bring the Chinese back to negotiating table, for instance pressing China to a binding code of conduct.

Australia must not back down even if China threats with sanctions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@jhungary
Australia must not back down even if China threats with sanctions.

Ok. But there's a reason their foreign minister is so reluctant to get involved: he has a pragmatic and realistic foreign policy orientation. You have to give a good reason why they should upset their biggest trade partner for an issue which does not concern them, keeping in mind that no country wants to be used as a tool for others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok. But there's a reason their foreign minister is so reluctant to get involved: he has a pragmatic and realistic foreign policy orientation. You have to give a good reason why they should upset their biggest trade partner for an issue which does not concern them, keeping in mind that no country wants to be used as a tool for others.
Right, for sure .... Australia is a big and great country. They know what they must do for themselves.

First, the Australian side will demand that the subs be built in Australia to enhance Australia’s shipbuilding industry centred on Adelaide, as well as to keep Australian tax dollars and jobs onshore. While Japan in December 2011 relaxed its arms export restrictions, which has allowed this deal to be considered in the first place, these restrictions were however ostensibly relaxed to allow Japanese defense manufacturers to engage in the joint development of sophisticated weapons systems with other partners
_ Well, transfer all most technology is likely impossible, but may be something important like AIP system technologies + propulsion systems will be built in Japan and assemble in Australia while hull's desgin will be transfer to Australia.
_ Japanese need money to boost their study on next gen Submarine, this deal is good chance.
 
Ok. But there's a reason their foreign minister is so reluctant to get involved: he has a pragmatic and realistic foreign policy orientation. You have to give a good reason why they should upset their biggest trade partner for an issue which does not concern them, keeping in mind that no country wants to be used as a tool for others.
What´s wrong for having a binding code of conduct? The codes should set the rules to avoid escalation in the SC sea dispute. Nothing else. The Australia´s PM supports the idea.

Australia has economic and strategic interests in ASEAN. It will turn to Australia´s disadvantage if China controls the region. The issue concerns them surely. Be peace, prosperity or war, disaster directly all affect Australia.
 
@jhungary

Besides Japan, Australia is the country which can make headache to Beijing. Canberra possesses some sticks (giant land mass, emerging economic, military, diplomatic power, etc...) to bring the Chinese back to negotiating table, for instance pressing China to a binding code of conduct.

Australia must not back down even if China threats with sanctions.

Our official stance in SCS is we have no stance, we don't support whoever clause and whoever claim. We do not support Chinese Claim but we also do not support anyone's else. Be it Philippine or Vietnam.

As long as SCS is on a peaceful term, we have no problem as an Australian.

But as Jool-Liar say, if anyside start shooting at Commercial Shipping of anyside, we will interven on behalf of our shipping. This is when we got involved.

On the official stance, we support a UN referendum, and international arbitration

Ok. But there's a reason their foreign minister is so reluctant to get involved: he has a pragmatic and realistic foreign policy orientation. You have to give a good reason why they should upset their biggest trade partner for an issue which does not concern them, keeping in mind that no country wants to be used as a tool for others.

As i said before, Australia do not support any claim on any country, we only support a full panel UN/International Arbitration. As long as everyside keep SCS a peaceful environment. We don't really care who claim what. We do not engage not because China is our biggest trading partner, simply it's not our game.

Right, for sure .... Australia is a big and great country. They know what they must do for themselves.

_ Well, transfer all most technology is likely impossible, but may be something important like AIP system technologies + propulsion systems will be built in Japan and assemble in Australia while hull's desgin will be transfer to Australia.
_ Japanese need money to boost their study on next gen Submarine, this deal is good chance.

I don't believe we will co-develope our Sub with Japan with the latest indication point to a Nordic Connection (Pointing at Sweden/Germany) We may have a technological development with the Japanese but i very much doubt we will have use Japanese technology in our navy.

But right now with talks still on, i have to say, it could be anybody game. But source in Australia more tend to a co-op with Scandinavian Country instead of Japan.

What´s wrong for having a binding code of conduct? The codes should set the rules to avoid escalation in the SC sea dispute. Nothing else. The Australia´s PM supports the idea.

Australia has economic and strategic interests in ASEAN. It will turn to Australia´s disadvantage if China controls the region. The issue concerns them surely. Be peace, prosperity or war, disaster directly all affect Australia.

Binding solution is for peace seeking purpose. We do not care who in charge of SCS but we do care if there are a peaceful resolution regarding SCS. If bullet start flying. That is the time you will see our present in the Area. Before then, we will hold on our engagement and more focus on using our Navy to catch people smuggler. Which is the biggest problem for 3 election already, stem from Johnny Howard Government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@jhungary

I think Australia should engage more in seeking a solution in the SCS dispute.

I agree that you should remain neutral. Being neutral means that you can take a moderator role in the talks between the claimants. You should not forget Beijing´s secret intention: to turn the SCS into a China´s internal water!

Do you know what that means? Every foreign ship must notify Beijing (or the worst case seek approval from China) when sail through! I don´t need to tell you what that means for Australia´s export economy.

Free navigation is a lip service.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@jhungary

I think Australia should engage more in seeking a solution in the SCS dispute.

I agree that you should remain neutral. Being neutral means that you can take a moderator role in the talks between the claimants. You should not forget Beijing´s secret intention: to turn the SCS into a China´s internal water!

Do you know what that means? Every foreign ship must notify Beijing (or the worst case seek approval from China) when sail through! I don´t need to tell you what that means for Australia´s export economy.

Free navigation is a lip service.

Personally, i don't think China should claim the whole sea as an internal water, nor would i think they can do such a thing. Even US cannot claim Gulf of Mexico as internal water.......I don't think China can do such a thing.

That being said, this is not Aussie fight. We cannot engage in the matter as there are no room for us. For the ANZ stance, we can only sit on the sideline and yell "International Convention" and that about all we can do about it.

Until our ship have been shot at in SCS, we will not and can not engage in the topic. I do believe this is the course of action we should follow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't believe we will co-develope our Sub with Japan with the latest indication point to a Nordic Connection (Pointing at Sweden/Germany) We may have a technological development with the Japanese but i very much doubt we will have use Japanese technology in our navy.

But right now with talks still on, i have to say, it could be anybody game. But source in Australia more tend to a co-op with Scandinavian Country instead of Japan.

Binding solution is for peace seeking purpose. We do not care who in charge of SCS but we do care if there are a peaceful resolution regarding SCS. If bullet start flying. That is the time you will see our present in the Area. Before then, we will hold on our engagement and more focus on using our Navy to catch people smuggler. Which is the biggest problem for 3 election already, stem from Johnny Howard Government.
_ You maybe right, Japanese did not export weapons for so long, they maybe lack experience for this section, but if Aussie turn another choice, it'll take more time with Type 216 or A-26 Sub class still on papers.
_ If Aussie was support for UN/International Laws, so it's good for ASEAN countries.
 
Personally, i don't think China should claim the whole sea as an internal water, nor would i think they can do such a thing. Even US cannot claim Gulf of Mexico as internal water.......I don't think China can do such a thing.

That being said, this is not Aussie fight. We cannot engage in the matter as there are no room for us. For the ANZ stance, we can only sit on the sideline and yell "International Convention" and that about all we can do about it.

Until our ship have been shot at in SCS, we will not and can not engage in the topic. I do believe this is the course of action we should follow.
You are such a naive person. You think, don´t think; assuming China can do, cannot do; so better you wait on the sideline.
Dude, if the cannon start to fire, then it is too late for everybody, including Australia and New Zealand. The SC sea will turn into a battlefield, in a worst case no any civil/commercial vessel can sail through.

How can you export your stuffs to Japan, China, Korea and others? Wake up!
 

Back
Top Bottom