AUKUS

[AerialPerspective]

Ok, let's paint a scenario shall we?

RAN takes out a Chinese destroyer with one of these you bewt new subs.

30 minutes later RAAF Tindal is a smoking hole in the ground.

If you are going to play with the big boys, carry a bigger stick. This is just embarrassing.

10 minutes before it is launched the Pentagon and Pine Gap detect the activity, with US Service Personnel also using Tindal and any thermonuclear device likely to poison part of the NT and kill thousands and thousands of US Personnel, I'd say the Chinese would think twice. They probably think the US will look after themselves but they also would not be entirely sure that they wouldn't defend us - the other factor is that if it's Virginia Class boats we get, they'd have to know if the Chinese decided to attack us, they would also gain access to the sub technology and Washington won't have that happen.

More likely the Chinese would sink one of our Destroyers or Frigates and then have the South China Morning Post write one of their Borat-like stories about Australians being crawling maggots in the dung of Americans or some other nonsense.

[AerialPerspective]

They watch too many movies. The Chinese are doing 'crazy Ivan'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRUpAipGu5w

"Re-Verify our Rangshe to target, one ping only......." "But Kepptin, I hevv...." "Give me a ping Vashilly, whun pingk ornly pleasshh"

Best 20 seconds of dialogue in the whole movie !!!!!!!

[AerialPerspective]

Two interesting stories in The Oz this morning - British Defence Secy and former US sub commander both saying that Oz boats will be Astutes.
Smaller, cheaper, (faster!) build avaliable at end of 2020s and more multi-mission capable.He said the submarine production would fit in with the British production cycle, given that the country has just kicked off its hunter-killer submarines, and the US is in full flow on its own boats. Australia has yet to decide whether to model its new submarine on the British or American models.

The British are in the final stages of completing the fifth Astute-class submarine, HMS Anson, which will begin sea trials early next year.

“We are in a strong position to help the Australians achieve that capability so I am very confident that British engineering, British skills, Australian nous, will deliver a very good submarine,” Mr Wallace said.

and:

Former submariner and navy commander Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at Washington’s Hudson Institute, said his discussions with US Navy and defence industry figures suggested the Virginia-class design would not be made available to Australia.

“I don’t get a sense that the US is going to share the Virginia re*actor plant with Australia,” he told The Australian. “I think it is pretty clear this is likely to be a British effort that the US supports through technology transfer.”

You've got to ask the question who the hell runs the United States. The President of the United States, the Chief Executive, Head of State and Head of Government announces that the United States will share its submarine technology with Australia and Australia will get either a US boat or a UK boat but with US nuclear technology.

Enter all these retired Admirals and Sub Commanders and defence 'experts' as well as un-named Pentagon persons saying no, that won't happen.

Like I said, who runs the US, the President or retired Admirals and defence mandarins.

[ORAC]

As I said previously, the problem the Australians buying the Virginia class would be getting the purchase through either, let alone both, House iof Congress. Even if they could it would take years - and they would also go to the end of the line behind the USN requirement.

Technology transfer is something the various committees would fight long and hard over.

The U.K., however, already has the technology, transferred aver the last few years for the PWR3 reactor*, which will fit comfortably inside an Astute.

All the UK required was for the President to authorise the UK to share what they already have - which he has done.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_PWR#PWR3

I workday think the main questions would be whether they get either of the last two boats with the PWR2b, for which, from what I have read, the line has been closed. I would doubt it.

The question would then be whether any of the Oz boats would be built at Barrow with a line then opened in Oz, or whether jigs and associated equipment would be transferred to Oz once boat 7 gets past the stage they are required.

In either case I would assume the reactors would all be built in the UK.

[Widger]

"and then we''ll **** off their coasht and lishten to their rock and roll and then we'll shail to Cuba, where the weather ish warm and sho ish the welcome. The order is, engage the shilent drive!"

[Video Mixdown]

The question would then be whether any of the Oz boats would be built at Barrow with a line then opened in Oz, or whether jigs and associated equipment would be transferred to Oz once boat. 7 gets past the stage they are required. In either case I would assume the reactors would all be built in the UK.
I guess the Australian construction companies could get on with building a replica of the facilities at Barrow whilst their engineers are trained in the UK by working on the remaining RN Astutes. Then when the jigs are free they’d be all set to start building their own. The steel used to make the hull is made to a classified specification by Sheffield Forgemasters, so maybe that will also have to made in the UK and shipped over.

[Flap Track 6]

There is no spare capacity at Barrow. The RN want Astute boat 7 HMS Agincourt out as quickly as possible so they can get on with HMS Dreadnought to start replacing the aging Vanguard class boats.

[Bengo]

A reason we got Astute number 7 was to keep Barrow busy till the Dreadnought builds came on stream and so avoid repeating the Astute basic SSN building techniques learning process. I daresay Boris, Ben and certainly Treasury would be quite happy for the RAN to have this boat and for the RAN's builders of choice to come and learn how things are done in the same way that BAE were helped. They can then take the jigs and special tools etc. off to Adelaide and build some more RAN modified Astutes around a RR reactor package, probably supplied ready to build in.

N

[Not_a_boffin]

A reason we got Astute number 7 was to keep Barrow busy till the Dreadnought builds came on stream and so avoid repeating the Astute basic SSN building techniques learning process. I daresay Boris, Ben and certainly Treasury would be quite happy for the RAN to have this boat and for the RAN's builders of choice to come and learn how things are done in the same way that BAE were helped. They can then take the jigs and special tools etc. off to Adelaide and build some more RAN modified Astutes around a RR reactor package, probably supplied ready to build in.

N

Nope. Boat 7 was contracted because we need at least seven.

I'd be very surprised if Astute (and its PWR2) form the basis of what is to come.

[Maggie Island]

As I said previously, the problem the Australians buying the Virginia class would be getting the purchase through either, let alone both, House iof Congress. Even if they could it would take years - and they would also go to the end of the line behind the USN requirement.



If Australia could get its hands on the EA-18G I doubt there’s much the US wouldn’t sell to us. The fetish in this thread about buying British is heartwarming, but when was the last time Australia made a major defence acquisition from the UK? Better yet when was the last time the RAN purchased an RN platform??

[Bengo]

Type 26 frigate?

N

[Video Mixdown]

If Australia could get its hands on the EA-18G I doubt there’s much the US wouldn’t sell to us. The fetish in this thread about buying British is heartwarming, but when was the last time Australia made a major defence acquisition from the UK? Better yet when was the last time the RAN purchased an RN platform??
There is no fetish - it's just the solution that best fits what we've been told about the events leading up to the announcement. It might be wrong, but time will tell.

[Asturias56]

"when was the last time Australia made a major defence acquisition from the UK? Better yet when was the last time the RAN purchased an RN platform?? "

Cough, cough - three years ago

"In June 2018, the Australian Government announced that it had selected a modified version of the Type 26 platform as the planned replacement for its Anzac-class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzac-class_frigate) frigate.[39] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate#cite_note-Prime_Minister_of_Australia-40) This will see the Royal Australian Navy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Navy) procure up to nine Hunter-class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-class_frigate) frigates, which will be constructed by BAE Systems Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Australia) at ASC's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASC_Pty_Ltd) shipyard in Osborne, South Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne,_South_Australia)"

[Asturias56]

"Boat 7 was contracted because we need at least seven."

The 1997 SDR wanted 10, this was cut to 8 and at one point it looked as if they might only build 5 - but (thank God) #6 and #7 were ordered, partly to keep the yard open as per Boffin's post.

The biggest problem is how are they going to recreate the fabulous weather of Barrow in Adelaide?

[ORAC]

The Growler is hi-tech, but not that hi-tech.

Remember Australia had reportedly expressed interest in buying the F-22 back in 2008, but had been rebuffed. You think selling a nuke sub would be any easier?

https://www.reuters.com/article/australia-defence-planes-idUSSYD31393720080220

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/574508-congresss-role-in-the-aukus-nuclear-powered-submarine-deal

[Maggie Island]

The Raptor being sold overseas was prohibited specifically by the Obey Amendment, there’s no specific US instrument to prohibit the sale of the Virginia class as far as I’m aware.

Congressional approval is obviously not a done deal but it’s far from impossible in this case.

[golder]

I forget what the agreement Bush entered into with the UK and one with Australia was called. It was given a fancy name. Someone here would know of it. It was for tech transfer. That is still valid.
Anyone?

[ORAC]

The Raptor being sold overseas was prohibited specifically by the Obey Amendment, there’s no specific US instrument to prohibit the sale of the Virginia class as far as I’m aware.
Read the second link in my post #517 above - it would require the repeal/amendment of several treaties and laws….

”…..While more specifics of the deal will be hammered out over the next 18 months, Congress can — and should — be skeptical of any “exception” that could weaken nonproliferation policy or insist on changes to avoid proliferation concerns.

Because the United States and Australia have an agreement (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/ATS/2010/25.html) that does not allow this sort of military transfer, Congress will get a say in whether it is amended.

Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 governs nuclear cooperation between the United States and other countries, laying out nine non-proliferation criteria. As recently as 2010, Congress permitted the Australian “123 agreement” to come into force until at least 2040. That deal, however, pertains only to civilian projects and explicitly forbids the transfer of materials for “military nuclear propulsion.”

The agreement also bans the transfer of fuel defined as “highly-enriched uranium” (HEU), meaning uranium enriched to 20 percent or higher in the isotope Uranium-235 (U-235). All United States nuclear submarines rely on fuel enriched to 93.5 percent in the isotope U-235, which technically qualifies as weapon-grade. A new arrangement with Australia, as well as the overall Foreign Military Sales agreement, will require separate Congressional approval processes that Congress will need to consider carefully……”

[golder]

The Growler is hi-tech, but not that hi-tech.

Remember Australia had reportedly expressed interest in buying the F-22 back in 2008, but had been rebuffed. You think selling a nuke sub would be any easier?

https://www.reuters.com/article/australia-defence-planes-idUSSYD31393720080220

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/574508-congresss-role-in-the-aukus-nuclear-powered-submarine-deal
That is news to me. I recall our PM at the time, John Howard. Specifically saying he didn't want the F-22, as it didn't have enough A2G and was only interested in the F-35 and didn't want the pure A2A. This was before the ban and when LM had their F-22 power point presentation for Australia. that Labour 'review' was never serious. It was political election spin on the purchase of the Super hornet at the time. they never made a request to the US for the F-22.

Anyone remember the agreement the UK and US and Australia US Signed about 2020-2025? It was after Boeing got fined for tech transfer to Australia, less than we already had access to..

[golder]

Australia already has the same level access to US tech. When the dust settles, you will find that AUKUS is more about the UK and Australia opening up more to each other. Expect an upcoming agreement.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-09-05/howard-bush-agree-to-share-military-technology/660820
2007...The US has agreed to upgrade Australia's access to American military technology and it will be lifted to the same level as Britain has.

The US agreement.. Defence Trade Co-operation Treaty,
UK signed in Sept 2007
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007-09/us-uk-sign-defense-trade-cooperation-treaty

Australia signed in November 2007
https://www1.defence.gov.au/business-industry/export/controls/us-trade-treaty

[rattman]

There was also the SILEX, basically australia developed a means of enrichment and licensed the tech the US. Possibly https://www.info.dfat.gov.au/Info/Treaties/treaties.nsf/3328431b218f8d59ca256ae1000029b8/3934cb6e8e928a49ca256aee001d3875?OpenDocument might have something to do with it

On the F-22 it was never offered by the US and we never asked for it. There was a proposal for a crippled export version but it never left report form
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42318/f-22-export-briefing-shows-what-it-would-have-taken-to-sell-the-raptor-abroad

[golder]

Further to the Defence Trade Co-operation Treaty.
https://www.acq.osd.mil/ic/DTCT.html

Ratification (RoR) were acted on by the Senate and House in late September, 2010. The UK Treaty entered into force in April 2012. The Australia Treaty entered into force on May 16, 2013.

The Treaties were drafted to meet specific operational and cooperative requirements of the U.S. and two key partners. The scope is specific to the types of collaboration between our Nations. The Treaties are specific to two of our closest allies, Australia and the UK, and would, presumably, afford greater cooperation and access than would be permissible under export control reform (ECR), which is a broad-based USG legal, regulatory, and policy reform that would affect the full range of USG export control activities.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Japanese are absolutely on the cards, the top candidate to replace Suga said it during a televised debate, dont think korea will be in the short term and india is doing their own and are not signitories to the NPT which has a section that covers naval reactors






I got a captains tour of the canberra, with the EO, way back when it was first commissioned. Someone asked this question the EO had the reply already to go, he said the canberra had been modified to make sustained flight ops impractical. The things he mentioned was that some aviation fuel tanks had been converted to diesel for vehicles it carries, some ammunition elevators had not been installed and part of the hanger had been converted to light vehicle bays. Dont pretend to even have a clue how easy or not it would be to reverse these.

There was rumors that one of the british aircraft carriers would be one deployment to the horn of africa, assume Dijbouti, but with aukus it might be more practical to do it to sydney. That might give us a some impetus to buy some or convert some the existing order to F-35bs to fly off the UK and possibly reverse the mods on one of the a Canberra to fly F-35's

A few minutes ago I found this video on YouTube - I have not yet watched it from start to finish but it might be of interest.

https://youtu.be/0QIA4bn4Pvc

[golder]

It's been done a 100 times...The ships are fully allotted in their current role. There would be a need to get new flat tops and associated support vessels. For this change in CONOPS.

[rattman]

A few minutes ago I found this video on YouTube - I have not yet watched it from start to finish but it might be of interest.


Yeah he does good vids, i am subbed to him. Well researched and thought out videos. On this specific video he pretty much hits all my major points and opinions.

I personally just think its a more we dont want to buy the aircraft and no longer have that tradition on naval aviation and also the navy has little interest in getting back into naval fixed wing aviation. Theres no technical reason why the navy couldn't do it, its more a lack of desire

[_pudknocker_]

LOL a nuclear sub hobbled with conventional weapons.

Somehow I don't think the Chinese are too concerned with this latest development.

There’s a great book out there by Tom Clancy. It delves into one of the many scenarios that could develop in the South China sea, touching on China’s voracious appetite for expansion in the area. The Chinese, whilst formidable, are lacking in weapons and tactics. Meanwhile, the US, UK and Aus, have been dining out on conflict since the end of WW2. They will indeed be very concerned at the advent of Australian SSN’s, built with US and UK know how operating in their back yard.

[Willard Whyte]

...HMS Agincourt...

Seems an appropriate name given the hissy fit the French are having.

[AerialPerspective]

A few minutes ago I found this video on YouTube - I have not yet watched it from start to finish but it might be of interest.

https://youtu.be/0QIA4bn4Pvc

Australia does not need aircraft carriers. The whole reason a replacement for the Sydney and Melbourne were abandoned is because in the context of our defence, aircraft carriers are a large, lumbering and easily neutralised asset - the only place they'd be used is away from home where the ability to defend them is questionable. Billions of dollars only to end up at the bottom of the sea.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Australia does not need aircraft carriers. The whole reason a replacement for the Sydney and Melbourne were abandoned is because in the context of our defence, aircraft carriers are a large, lumbering and easily neutralised asset - the only place they'd be used is away from home where the ability to defend them is questionable. Billions of dollars only to end up at the bottom of the sea.

Of course, some would argue that the carrier (or LHD carrying aircraft other than troop transports) defends a task group. Things like LHDs full of troops are likely to attract hostile attention - so a few aircraft capable of air defence and being able to based multiple ASW helicopters in the same ship tends to make the force more survivable.

Just saying...

[Asturias56]

WEBF - not everyone needs or wants aircraft carriers

[rattman]

WEBF - not everyone needs or wants aircraft carriers

I dont think we need one or the fighters but we should have the capability to land and launch other countries if the situation warrants it

[golder]

Of course, some would argue that the carrier (or LHD carrying aircraft other than troop transports) defends a task group. Things like LHDs full of troops are likely to attract hostile attention - so a few aircraft capable of air defence and being able to based multiple ASW helicopters in the same ship tends to make the force more survivable.

Just saying...
It simply doesn't fit our current CONOPS. If it is that big of a stink. We would be going as part of a coalition and a joint landing. We have ASW ASuW helicopters and have just ordered another 12. I would assume the big boys will still have carriers, if needed.

[Asturias56]

The question re Australian carriers is where are they going to operate? Any action is likely to be in Indonesian and Philippines waters - pretty crowded and surrounded by islands. Anything further east will be in US dominated waters. Better to operate from local, land bases IMHO

[tartare]

Personally - I look at any surface ship these days and all I see is a big, fat, juicy, floating target.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Personally - I look at any surface ship these days and all I see is a big, fat, juicy, floating target.

We are screwed then as 90% or so of international trade goes by sea. Or perhaps we could have ships specially designed to detect and fight submarines, and to protect other ships? Maybe some of them could carry helicopters? Multiple helicopters maybe, on a large flight deck...

This is not a carrier thread. Strictly speaking it is just just a submarine one either, but it needs to be pointed out that submarines often work with surface warships, and that the RAN is in the top league of navies in that it can put a viable task group together. However, there are gaps in capabilities, although if the assumption is that they will be alongside the Americans, then that changes things. As far as I know Australia does not have Marines so you have to wonder where the troops to fill two LHDs will come from.

[rattman]

As far as I know Australia does not have Marines so you have to wonder where the troops to fill two LHDs will come from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Battalion,_Royal_Australian_Regiment, they are the specialist unit, equivilent to a marine raider force. Australia has quietly upgrading its a amphibious forces, they learnt the hard way during timor about how poor they were. Only fortuitous leasing of the HMAS Jervis Bay AKA Dili Express 2 years previous prevented it being a compete cluster ...............

The battalion is planned to generally deploy as the main element of the Australian Amphibious Force's Joint Pre-Landing Force (JPLF).[34] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Battalion,_Royal_Australian_Regiment#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMcKenzie201711-34)[37] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Battalion,_Royal_Australian_Regiment#cite_note-37) It is planned that the 2 RAR elements generally assigned to the Pre-Landing Force (PLF) will be a command and control node, elements from the Reconnaissance and Sniper and Small Boat Platoons, two infantry platoons, a joint fires team and a signals detachment.

or watch this vid goto 6minutes 50
https://youtu.be/_onINY4rq74?t=413

[Matt48]

The contract was 2 parts, one was the design and then a construction contract based on the final design. The construction contract has not been signed because there was no detailed design yet

The were to be paid 600 million for the phase 1 contract that covered the design. That was broken into sub phases, a basic design and the detailed design for construction. If australia cancelled the contract after the basic design, NG get 200 mill for contract cancellation, if after detailed design they get 400 million,

So that sounds like a staged contract, each part signed as the preceding one is completed,
The Frogs were 'expecting' the contract to honoured in it's entirety when that's not the case.
Also, wasn't everything in French and had to be rewritten to English, and it was appearing they were going to build more of it offshore than agreed to.

[Matt48]

"I'm afraid you will not escape so easily from the bill."

Just stick it on the account mate, you know, the one from WW1 & 2. ....

[Matt48]

"So after Kevin Rudd, it seems now Malcolm Turnbull considers that France has been deliberately and unelegantly betrayed.
That makes two ex-Australian PM against one - but for some reasons, it seems commentators here do prefer the N° 3, Scott Morrison (why ? no idea - that's internal Aussie politics, and I don't really care)"

That's two blowhard narcissists that were binned before they even served one term, it's a wonder you haven't mentioned that francophile clock collector Keating.
And yes, you do care, you are weeping into your croussants all the time.

[rattman]

Also, wasn't everything in French and had to be rewritten to English, and it was appearing they were going to build more of it offshore than agreed to.

So go the rumors they presented the documents in french the naval guys said we want them in english, NG said you didn't specifiy but will we do it for a **** ton of money. RAN said do it or we walk

Also good vid on the whole saga

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDy4_ozmnw&t=3984s

[Buster Hyman]

So go the rumors they presented the documents in french the naval guys said we want them in english, NG said you didn't specifiy but will we do it for a **** ton of money.
In fairness, that happens here on Civil projects as well. It's not uniquely French. Some construction companies have teams of Lawyers read through Tenders looking for Variation opportunities & lower their bid as they know they'll recoup the difference, and some, when they "discover" variations after signing.

[tartare]

We are screwed then as 90% or so of international trade goes by sea. Or perhaps we could have ships specially designed to detect and fight submarines, and to protect other ships? Maybe some of them could carry helicopters? Multiple helicopters maybe, on a large flight deck...

This is not a carrier thread. Strictly speaking it is just just a submarine one either, but it needs to be pointed out that submarines often work with surface warships, and that the RAN is in the top league of navies in that it can put a viable task group together. However, there are gaps in capabilities, although if the assumption is that they will be alongside the Americans, then that changes things. As far as I know Australia does not have Marines so you have to wonder where the troops to fill two LHDs will come from.

Not quite sure what you mean?
My point - probably not clearly enough made - was that if the shooting starts any big surface vessel is now highly vulnerable to weapons like the DF-21.
Personally, if I had to be at sea at that point - I'd rather be under it - or over it - rather than floating on top of it in a big, fat target.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Not quite sure what you mean?
My point - probably not clearly enough made - was that if the shooting starts any big surface vessel is now highly vulnerable to weapons like the DF-21.
Personally, if I had to be at sea at that point - I'd rather be under it - or over it - rather than floating on top of it in a big, fat target.

Two points I made - badly:

1. DF-21 is not something that nothing can be done about. As well as giving naval and other forces anti ballistic missile capabilities, there is a whole kill chain to be disrupted, including the enemy reconnaissance assets that determine where the target is. Aside from things like spoofing, deception via electronic transmissions, controlling the emissions from friendly forces, enemy submarines and aircraft can be countered (which was a carrier role during Second World War and during the Cold War), and even satellites in low earth orbit can be engaged by weapons such as SM-6. Remember when the Americans splashed one of their own faulty satellites?

2. Even in time of conflict, huge quantities of equipment and forces have to be moved by sea. There is no alternative.

Thus the investment in balanced naval forces - capable surface combatants and ASW helicopters, and submarines.

[ORAC]

even satellites in low earth orbit can be engaged by weapons such as SM-6. Moving into a whole new area of tracking and identification let alone engagement. Plus we are moving into an era of cubesat sized constellations in their thousands (even the UK is going to have one) with almost instant launch and replace capability.

Boeing Pelican would probably be the cheaper solution - particularly for the Pacific island chain theatre....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Pelican

[sfm818]

There is broader dimension to the Trilateral Alliance than SSN technology transfer. The 2016 Defence White Paper and 2020 Strategic Update presented by Canberra set out a coherent plan to meet challenges in the 21st century. The ADF procurement list is unique. Triton. Peregrine. Wedgetail. Poseidon. Growler. LRSM. PrSM. Australia is either the first or only foreign customer trusted by the US to operate these platforms/weapons. Although this is primarily a naval thread the last detail on that list is relevant.

The Australian Army plan to acquire the precision strike missile. Now that Intermediate Range Treaty has gone out the window (never to return) can the natural defence of Australia's land mass and geographical isolation be any defence against future attack from a hypersonic weapon. Australia is cooperating with the US to develop precision strike capability at ranges previously banned by the INF Treaty - presumably, that will include targets at sea.

On the subject of geographical isolation being a natural defence - that did not deter Japan from sending Betty bombers to attack a one horse town in Western Australia during WW2. The threat? A USN submarine base at Exmouth. :E

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article255040732.html

[Lookleft]

On the subject of geographical isolation being a natural defence - that did not deter Japan from sending Betty bombers to attack a one horse town in Western Australia during WW2. The threat? A USN submarine base at Exmouth.

So they moved the base to Freo. problem solved. Perth is the most isolated capital city in the world. A good place to start when looking for geographical isolation. Certainly the State Premier thinks so in his dealings with Covid.

[sfm818]

Exmouth remains, with every litre of fuel supplied from Fremantle by road train. The point is what assets are in place at that joint operated location. If it was considered strategically important for DARPA to relocate hardware from White Sands to the North West Cape, maybe that coastal target is still within reach. As others have referenced here, space has become a contested domain during two decades in pursuit of the Bush Doctrine. Australia is uniquely placed to offer ground based surveillance and even opportunities for equatorial launch or launch into polar orbit.

[golder]

There is broader dimension to the Trilateral Alliance than SSN technology transfer. The 2016 Defence White Paper and 2020 Strategic Update presented by Canberra set out a coherent plan to meet challenges in the 21st century. The ADF procurement list is unique. Triton. Peregrine. Wedgetail. Poseidon. Growler. LRSM. PrSM. Australia is either the first or only foreign customer trusted by the US to operate these platforms/weapons. Although this is primarily a naval thread the last detail on that list is relevant.

The Australian Army plan to acquire the precision strike missile. Now that Intermediate Range Treaty has gone out the window (never to return) can the natural defence of Australia's land mass and geographical isolation be any defence against future attack from a hypersonic weapon. Australia is cooperating with the US to develop precision strike capability at ranges previously banned by the INF Treaty - presumably, that will include targets at sea.

On the subject of geographical isolation being a natural defence - that did not deter Japan from sending Betty bombers to attack a one horse town in Western Australia during WW2. The threat? A USN submarine base at Exmouth. :E

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article255040732.html
Although that article doesn't reflect it. Australia has partnered with the US in the development of the +1,000km PrSM
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/land/some-context-around-the-recent-precision-strike-missile-announcement

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I am not Australian, but Australia is an important contributor to World security and stability, including at sea. Before bowing out, I will make a few final points.

1. Satellites may be difficult to target, particularly small ones, but the ground segment is not.

2. Submarines are primarily about sea denial (stoppings others from using the sea for commerce, resupply, or for offensive action), the carrier and surface forces in general exist for sea control. If you are prepared to hand over control of the seas, then you might as well join the Communist Communist Party. It really is that blunt.

3. We hear a lot about the DF-21, but China still feels the need to build things like carriers and amphibious vessels, despite the fact that the United States has similar technologies. Could it be that Chinese and Russian anti Western (values - not geography or race) propaganda includes things such as relentless attacks against the reputation of of systems and capabilities, which representing their own as 100% reliable and undefeatable?

4. I suspect a lot of what this article says also applies to China and the Indo-Pacific: IT’S TIME TO TALK ABOUT A2/AD: RETHINKING THE RUSSIAN MILITARY CHALLENGE (https://warontherocks.com/2019/09/its-time-to-talk-about-a2-ad-rethinking-the-russian-military-challenge/)

[rattman]

There a bidding process out for indian submarines. AIP powered barracuda is one of the contenders. The others are spanish S-80, russian amur, and indian based on scorpene.

Wonder if part of issue is with australia withdrawing is that it could have had a bad look for the attempt at winning the indian sub contract

[Asturias56]

The Indians will go their own way - come back in 10 years and they may have made a decision that they've stuck to

[Flap Track 6]

The Indians will go their own way - come back in 10 years and they may have made a decision that they've stuck to
I know what you mean, but I think there is an urgency about this requirement because of the strategic situation and their rapidly obsolescent existing fleet.

I am involved with one of the bidding platforms - rattman's list is not correct. The Indians want an AIP sub with vertical launch tubes for long range land attack missiles.

[rattman]

I am involved with one of the bidding platforms - rattman's list is not correct. The Indians want an AIP sub with vertical launch tubes for long range land attack missiles.

How am I incorrect, thats the list from the indians. AIP and VLS will added to barracuda. NG has submitted both the barracuda and the scorpene for the program

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/10/the-4-submarines-competing-for-the-indian-navys-p-75i-program/

[etudiant]

I know what you mean, but I think there is an urgency about this requirement because of the strategic situation and their rapidly obsolescent existing fleet.

I am involved with one of the bidding platforms - rattman's list is not correct. The Indians want an AIP sub with vertical launch tubes for long range land attack missiles.

The past experience with urgent requirement procurements from India is that they tend to evaporate or be delayed.
Missile launching subs are a maintenance and operating nightmare, hugely expensive to buy and to operate. I'd expect this requirement too to evaporate, it just asks for too much.

[Flap Track 6]

The past experience with urgent requirement procurements from India is that they tend to evaporate or be delayed.
Missile launching subs are a maintenance and operating nightmare, hugely expensive to buy and to operate. I'd expect this requirement too to evaporate, it just asks for too much.

You may be correct, Sir, but from the Indians' point of view, the naval situation is deteriorating rapidly. With Chinese SSNs roaming the Indian Ocean hunting down India's future SSBN Fleet and surface combatants, some wonky old Kilos and a few Scorpenes are not going to cut the mustard. They're going to need something much more capable than they currently own.

[Flap Track 6]

How am I incorrect, thats the list from the indians. AIP and VLS will added to barracuda. NG has submitted both the barracuda and the scorpene for the program

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/10/the-4-submarines-competing-for-the-indian-navys-p-75i-program/

The NavalNews article is well researched and correctly lists the remaining four shortlisted platforms. One of those is currently in service and meets all the Indians' requirements but is not listed in your post #552. Only one of the shortlisted platforms is French.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/09/new-dawn-first-time-a-modern-non-nuclear-submarine-has-fired-a-ballistic-missile/

[Asturias56]

"With Chinese SSNs roaming the Indian Ocean hunting down India's future SSBN Fleet and surface combatants,"

I doubt it's a priority right now - I'll bet any Chinese SSN is east of Taiwan

[WE Branch Fanatic]

You may be correct, Sir, but from the Indians' point of view, the naval situation is deteriorating rapidly. With Chinese SSNs roaming the Indian Ocean hunting down India's future SSBN Fleet and surface combatants, some wonky old Kilos and a few Scorpenes are not going to cut the mustard. They're going to need something much more capable than they currently own.

Why does everyone forget about seaborne commerce and crisis response shipping? I suspect that the PLA(N) submarine threat is the reason that the Indian Navy is acquiring a significant number of ASW helicopters, including ones meant to be carrier based. I understand that they are purchasing MH-60R at the rush, and I wonder if they will operate them with an Observer like the RAN?

[ORAC]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/19/iaea-aukus-deal-nuclear-submarines

IAEA chief: Aukus could set precedent for pursuit of nuclear submarines

The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog has said other states could follow Australia’s example and seek to build nuclear-powered submarines, raising serious proliferation and legal concerns.

Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said during a visit to Washington that he had set up a special team to look into the nuclear safeguards and legal implications of the Aukus partnership (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/15/australia-nuclear-powered-submarines-us-uk-security-partnership-aukus) announced last month, in which the US and UK will help Australia build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.

If the plan is carried through, it would be the first time a non-nuclear weapons state has acquired nuclear-powered submarines. It reflects a grey area in the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows fissile material to be removed from IAEA safeguards for such purposes…..

[fab777]

Seems an appropriate name given the hissy fit the French are having.

the French navy does not feel the need to name ships after some old and faded recollection of a glorious military past.

[Not_a_boffin]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/19/iaea-aukus-deal-nuclear-submarines

IAEA chief: Aukus could set precedent for pursuit of nuclear submarines

The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog has said other states could follow Australia’s example and seek to build nuclear-powered submarines, raising serious proliferation and legal concerns.

Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said during a visit to Washington that he had set up a special team to look into the nuclear safeguards and legal implications of the Aukus partnership (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/15/australia-nuclear-powered-submarines-us-uk-security-partnership-aukus) announced last month, in which the US and UK will help Australia build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.

If the plan is carried through, it would be the first time a non-nuclear weapons state has acquired nuclear-powered submarines. It reflects a grey area in the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows fissile material to be removed from IAEA safeguards for such purposes…..

Not quite - and wait, who's that helping the Brazilians? Zut alors, quelle dommage etc...

PROSUB Milestone: Brazilian Navy Approves Basic Design of SN-BR Submarine - Naval News (https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/12/prosub-milestone-brazilian-navy-approves-basic-design-of-sn-br-submarine/)

[ORAC]

The French subs use commercial grade grade fuel, hence needing refuelling every 5 years, covered under existing IAEA regulations.

The UK and USA reactors use weapons grade fuel, which is why they last for the life of the sub.

if you want a comparison, Iran has the first - everyone is twitching about them enriching it to the second.

[rattman]

The French subs use commercial grade grade fuel, hence needing refuelling every 5 years, covered under existing IAEA regulations.

The UK and USA reactors use weapons grade fuel, which is why they last for the life of the sub.

if you want a comparison, Iran has the first - everyone is twitching about them enriching it to the second.

Everyone seems to forget the russians have more HEU reactors than everyone else combine. So as users of HEU we US, UK, Russia / Soviet Union, its believed that india currently does and france has previous. In 2013 russia had 56 HEU plants

I do believe IAEA are right to be concerned about proliferation of HEU around the world

[Herod]

the French navy does not feel the need to name ships after some old and faded recollection of a glorious military past.

Come on! Somebody has got to bite on this one.

[golder]

I'm starting to feel sorry for them. They are so butt hurt, their roids are bleeding. I'm just glad their 'Napoleon complex' arrogance, is carrying them through this difficult period. France has has a lot of disputed over the last couple of years. Sadly I can't see that changing into the future. A term 'born that way' fits

[golder]

Meanwhile, this is worth watching on the UK and AUKUS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RHyf4JHJf4

[PPRuNeUser0211]

the French navy does not feel the need to name ships after some old and faded recollection of a glorious military past.
I mean, you'd have to have a glorious military past to name things after, in order to not feel the need to do that?

(Banter!)

[rattman]

I mean, you'd have to have a glorious military past to name things after, in order to not feel the need to do that?

(Banter!)


They did have one success the sufferen is that ship that killed nelson, so yeah they are kinda naming ships after their past glories if you completely ignore the the rest of the battle of trafalger

[Flap Track 6]

Come on! Somebody has got to bite on this one.

Our American friends name ships after old battles they lost (Bunker Hill).

[rattman]

Our American friends name ships after old battles they lost (Bunker Hill).

Or friendly ships they accidently sunk ie USS Canberra

[ORAC]

No, it’s not a SNL skit, she’s a Trump supporting commentator…….

(Making a case not to get involved in more overseas alliances and adventures)

https://twitter.com/warmatters/status/1451780861582626818?s=21

[ChrisJ800]

Thats a tongue in cheek video, see the other thread about its context. I just watched this vid on the new AARGM - ER and hope we in Oz can get these as part of AUKUS. Fits well with our F35 and Super Hornet assets!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCqky2-AtvA

[FakePilot]

No, it’s not a SNL skit, she’s a Trump supporting commentator…….

(Making a case not to get involved in more overseas alliances and adventures)

https://twitter.com/warmatters/status/1451780861582626818?s=21

You probably doubled her audience posting this on PPRUNE.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The French subs use commercial grade grade fuel, hence needing refuelling every 5 years, covered under existing IAEA regulations.

The UK and USA reactors use weapons grade fuel, which is why they last for the life of the sub.

if you want a comparison, Iran has the first - everyone is twitching about them enriching it to the second.

Naval reactors do use more highly enriched fuel than most civil power ones, but I think describing it as 'weapons grade' is a bit of an exaggeration. Surely all Uranuim reactors rely on U235 to fission?

Not so sure about American submarine reactors, but the Astute class SSN is the first RN nuclear boat to be designed not to need refuelling. This is a big thing as it means a massive refit that takes the boat out of service for years is no longer needed. They have the same PWR 2 reactor as the Vanguard class SSBN (which have needed refuelling) but with a new reactor core that is designed to last longer.

Has France not gone down a similar route?

I was slightly surprised to recently learn that Australia has no nuclear industry, apart from Uranuim mines. The only reactor is a small one used for research and making radionuclides for scientific and medical purposes.

[Gnadenburg]

I was slightly surprised to recently learn that Australia has no nuclear industry, apart from Uranuim mines. The only reactor is a small one used for research and making radionuclides for scientific and medical purposes.

Worth reading easily researchable information of Australia's ambitions for nuclear weapons in the sixties and how we fit in with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty politics and processes of the time.

The refuelling of reactors is one reason why there was no option of a French nuclear submarine. The loss of capability sovereignty in the future, to both the politics of the day and cost, is completely at the whim of the French. Versus hopefully lesser risks with traditional allies such as the UK and US.

[ORAC]

Has France not gone down a similar route?


https://uploads.fas.org/2016/12/Frances-Choice-for-Naval-Nuclear-Propulsion.pdf

https://nonproliferation.org/civilian-heu-france/

https://fissilematerials.org/blog/2020/04/us_study_of_reactor_and_f.html

[rattman]

Another thing to take into account is the a ANSTO (Australian nuclear sciences and technology organisation) developed what is beleived to be the most efficient means of enrichment. Its currently licensed to exclusively the the US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_laser_excitation

[WE Branch Fanatic]

All this talk of submarines has overshadowed other significant aspects of the AUKUS agreement. Intelligence and technology sharing are also parts of adapting to changing Global politics.

[rattman]

All this talk of submarines has overshadowed other significant aspects of the AUKUS agreement. Intelligence and technology sharing are also parts of adapting to changing Global politics.

The submarine was a justifiable headline of the announcement, while there was also a few smaller announcement like shyborg/loyal wingman, joint hypersonic and PRSM development programs. Guessing there will be a lot of extra stuff currently in discussion. Like apparently the discussion about permanent basing of US marine in Northern QLD is back on the cards

[rattman]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-26/american-dominated-panel-advising-nuclear-submarine-fleet/100567052


NZ apparently wants in

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/new-zealand-could-join-aukus-security-pact-to-boost-cyber-technologies-20211025-p592tr.html

[TBM-Legend]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-26/american-dominated-panel-advising-nuclear-submarine-fleet/100567052


NZ apparently wants in (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-26/american-dominated-panel-advising-nuclear-submarine-fleet/100567052)
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/new-zealand-could-join-aukus-security-pact-to-boost-cyber-technologies-20211025-p592tr.html


Tell NZ to go take a cold shower. Banning nukes and little to contribute doesn't cut it...they can't have it both ways! [or maybe Ardern can]

[ChrisJ800]

Tell NZ to go take a cold shower. Banning nukes and little to contribute doesn't cut it...they can't have it both ways! [or maybe Ardern can]

By NZ you mean New Xi Land

[ORAC]

Can’t see it on three grounds.

Firstly, what would NZ bring to the table to earn a seat at the table? I cant see anything.

Secondly membership would allow them a disruptive voice on an6 decisions, whether nuclear or not - as already proven over 5 Eyes discussions.

Lastly, with the deep involvement of China in companies and universities in NZ, the risk would high of any research into new technology, cyber, quantum or other, rapidly being passed on to Chinese researchers.

[Ninthace]

Can’t see it on three grounds.

Firstly, what would NZ bring to the table to earn a seat at the table? I cant see anything.

Secondly membership would allow them a disruptive voice on an6 decisions, whether nuclear or not - as already proven over 5 Eyes discussions.

Lastly, with the deep involvement of China in companies and universities in NZ, the risk would high of any research into new technology, cyber, quantum or other, rapidly being passed on to Chinese researchers.

From what I am seeing in the scientific literature, the risk is rather the reverse when it comes to the flow of new technologies, especially quantum computing and cyber.

[ORAC]

All the more reason, if money is thrown at the area, to preserve what is developed.

[rattman]

The RAN fronted senate estimates today. Only seen bits, waiting for the full transcript but interest things

The head of the nuclear submarine taskforce, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, has told the committee that Australia intended to select a "mature design" for its nuclear submarine, to be built under the AUKUS security partnership.

also think he said hopes to 1 maybe 2 ready by 2040

[Navaleye]

Astute would be the ideal design and the tooling can be transferred after UK boat 7 is completed. The PWR-2 or 3 debate is a smokescreen as neither of them require refuelling during their service lives.

[balboa1968]

The RAN fronted senate estimates today. Only seen bits, waiting for the full transcript but interest things

The head of the nuclear submarine taskforce, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, has told the committee that Australia intended to select a "mature design" for its nuclear submarine, to be built under the AUKUS security partnership.

also think he said hopes to 1 maybe 2 ready by 2040

I told you 1 month ago, 1or 2 sub in 2040, if the RAN takes the Suffren class, it will be all 12 before 2035 ! Game, Set and Match !

[ORAC]

Assuming France would have agreed to change the contract to nuclear, and at what cost, I doub5 th3 first would have been delivered by 2035.

Also, seeing as they were complaining they couldn’t even get to 60% local build content on a conventional boat, I doubt that even. 20-30% local content would have been offered - totally against the entire Australian required concept of locally built and supplied support (see previous video ref the Collins class).

Lastly that would have required the entire fleet to b3 refuelled every 5 years in France, placing the entire force at the mercy of French political designs. Seeing as they are pushing a pro-China policy in the EU that would have been an unacceptable risk.

But apart from that, you have a point.

[Gnadenburg]

I told you 1 month ago, 1or 2 sub in 2040, if the RAN takes the Suffren class, it will be all 12 before 2035 ! Game, Set and Match !

Quite obviously, out of the question. Point was made a month ago that the refuelling requirements put Australia in a loss of sovereignty scenario if the French have any sort of a tantrum.

If Australia develops a submarine capability gap, AUKUS will fill it with non-sovereign assets with regular rotations through expanded east and west coast infrastructures. Many Australians will find this palatable as opposed to relying on French good will in the face of CCP coercion! And this is what many folks seem to forget-AUKUS is about protecting a country who is standing up to China more than most and having far more to lose economically than most. China's pressure on Australia has strategic ambitions little different to Imperial Japanese forces in 1942. Fracture and isolate Australia from the US and secure the western reaches of the Pacific.

The ADF is also being rapidly expanded with capabilities delivering a long range punch to offset a delayed deployment of Collins replacements.

[rattman]

Just waiting for the announcement that australia is going to lease 2 american subs probably 688's but I cant discount earlier blocks 1 virginia's that are at hawaii

[balboa1968]

Assuming France would have agreed to change the contract to nuclear, and at what cost, I doub5 th3 first would have been delivered by 2035.

Also, seeing as they were complaining they couldn’t even get to 60% local build content on a conventional boat, I doubt that even. 20-30% local content would have been offered - totally against the entire Australian required concept of locally built and supplied support (see previous video ref the Collins class).

Lastly that would have required the entire fleet to b3 refuelled every 5 years in France, placing the entire force at the mercy of French political designs. Seeing as they are pushing a pro-China policy in the EU that would have been an unacceptable risk.

But apart from that, you have a point.
The first Suffren is already sailing. Ok I am perhaps a little optimistic about 2035 , but all 12 would have been ready in 2040 ( 19 years from now ).
IMHO Australia will never get the latest nuke subs from the US.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

One hates to criticise our French neighbours, but I suspect that the Australian Government were aware of certain issues, see below.

1. A document relating to non UK or Soviet/Russian naval/marine nuclear propulsion (https://www.lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Part-4_UK-France-Others-60-yrs-of-marine-nuc-power.pdf). It seems that ORAC was right about low enrichment levels.

2. A discussion of political and integration problems relating to the design and construction of the FS Charles de Gaulle - from here (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/cvf-and-carrier-strike-thread.178170/page-321#post-7911070). First class engineering, but woeful project management.

Given that this is an aviation forum, are their any ASW aspects to AUKUS arrangements, relating to the P-8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft or naval ASW helicopters?

[tartare]

Just waiting for the announcement that australia is going to lease 2 american subs probably 688's but I cant discount earlier blocks 1 virginia's that are at hawaii

Source for that?

[golder]

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/leased-submarines-to-fill-security-gap-20210919-p58syl
Australia plans to lease and share existing nuclear-powered submarines years before acquisition, narrowing a risk the American or British subs arrive too late to counter China’s rapid military expansion in the Indo-Pacific.

[rjtjrt]

I wonder if there is a feeling in RAN that they need to get a nuclear powered sub ASAP in case the political climate changes (eg Greens get balance of power in a hung parliament).
Once they have one in fleet (even if leased) then much harder to reverse the decision re an RAN nuclear powered sub fleet.

[tartare]

Interesting.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/australia-could-build-front-half-of-nuclear-powered-subs
We build the front half, and the Yanks build the back half.
What could possibly go wrong???!!!!
Just as long as they're really clear regarding metric, or imperial :E

[rattman]

Interesting.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/australia-could-build-front-half-of-nuclear-powered-subs
We build the front half, and the Yanks build the back half.
What could possibly go wrong???!!!!


Not sure that new news in any form, the plans have always been the nuclear plant and engineering would be built somewhere else, shipped to aus then mated with the rest. The actuall % could be new info considering collins something like 60% local, I think 60% local on a nuclear would be completely unrealistic

[golder]

Fair enough, he has an election early next year and has to play to his domestic audience. However, he must realise that France needs the US,UK and AU far more in the Pacific, than they need France.

https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/scott-morrisons-first-conversation-with-emmanuel-macron-after-aukus-deal-that-sparked-political-tensions/news-story/cd9963ce5f133af03b658264b570e847
The phone exchange between the two leaders was largely tense where Mr Macron doubled down on his comments Australia had "broken the relation of trust between our two countries..It is now up to the Australian Government to propose tangible actions that embody the political will of Australia's highest authorities to redefine the bias of our bilateral relationship and continue join action in the Indo-Pacific," the Elysee Palace said.

[tartare]

Not sure that new news in any form, the plans have always been the nuclear plant and engineering would be built somewhere else, shipped to aus then mated with the rest. The actuall % could be new info considering collins something like 60% local, I think 60% local on a nuclear would be completely unrealistic

Guess it's just interpretation.
The way I read the latest story was it was being suggested that Oz would build the entire front half, the US the entire back half, and then they'd be mated.
Both the Virginia and Astute boats are assembled in modules after all, so I suppose it's technically possible.
And if the RAN does get the Virginia class, it may be a way of addressing the production line constraints at Newport News, due to USN orders.
But how you'd get half a sub down here, or up there... maybe I'm reading it too literally.

[rattman]

.
But how you'd get half a sub down here, or up there... maybe I'm reading it too literally.

Heavy lift ships. Same way both canberra and adelaide were shipped to williamstown from spain.

http://www.seapixonline.com/NSImages4/Blue-Marlin-Canberra-Prt-side-17-10-2012.jpg

That maybe impractical because they dont want to float the section so they might make into 3-4 bits, reactor, 1-2 engineering sections and the propulsor and just use a crane to load and unload from a bulk carrier. Now that I think about sections is the way easier than a lift ship

[The Helpful Stacker]

Jed Babbin was pretty accurate about our Gallic chums.

[Buster Hyman]

The way I read the latest story was it was being suggested that Oz would build the entire front half, the US the entire back half, and then they'd be mated.

Could've stuck with the French boats (https://www.tech-gate.org/usa/2021/04/15/damaged-french-submarine-cut-in-two-so-salvageable-half-can-be-welded-onto-another-chopped-up-sub/) for that!

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/962x540/damaged_french_submarine_cut_in_two_so_salvageable_half_can_ 141a715235ebcd7506ebe79314fa55015e046a8b.jpg

[Navaleye]

HMS Astute has just arrived in Perth. What a coincidence. Expect to see an announcement of her being based there in the not too distant future or even transferred to the RAN

[Video Mixdown]

Fair enough, he has an election early next year and has to play to his domestic audience.
It’s much more than that. With Merkel going he assumes he will be the new top dog in the EU.

[balboa1968]

Fair enough, he has an election early next year and has to play to his domestic audience. However, he must realise that France needs the US,UK and AU far more in the Pacific, than they need France.



Are you sure about that ? I don t think so !

[Video Mixdown]

HMS Astute has just arrived in Perth. What a coincidence. Expect to see an announcement of her being based there in the not too distant future or even transferred to the RAN
Doesn’t prove anything of course, but it could very well be seen as straws in the wind. Doubt a permanent transfer is on the cards, but a long-term deployment would certainly provide scope for the training and familiarisation of both crew and base support personnel.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

HMS Astute has just arrived in Perth. What a coincidence. Expect to see an announcement of her being based there in the not too distant future or even transferred to the RAN

Forward based - possibly. Transfer - no. We need seven SSNs to provide cover for CASD, contribute to NATO operations in the North Atlantic and High North, contribute to the carrier/amphibious based task group, and operate in the Middle East.

[ORAC]

Bit difficult to do any of those from Perth…..

[rattman]

Bit difficult to do any of those from Perth…..
One of the jobs is the escort of carriers, if/ when POW is based in Oman can see its escort spending its spare time in australia

[WE Branch Fanatic]

One of the jobs is the escort of carriers, if/ when POW is based in Oman can see its escort spending its spare time in australia

Not sure how you use a submarine as an escort*, but you do have a point.

*Coordinated ASW is the phrase you want. On which note, I wonder if any ASW related programmes are part of AUKUS? RAN ASW helicopters have taken part in UK/NATO exercises.

[rattman]

Not sure how you use a submarine as an escort*, but you do have a point.

*Coordinated ASW is the phrase you want. On which note, I wonder if any ASW related programmes are part of AUKUS? RAN ASW helicopters have taken part in UK/NATO exercises.

standard doctrine has US and UK carrier battle groups having an SSN as part of the escort, CSG 21 actually has artful, so naval news might be wrong on saying it was part of the carrier group because MOD lists it as artful and not astute

as to the ASW australia has been focusing on it, with the new M-60R's and 14 posiedens

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Not so much escort as consort. Saying the carrier has escorts suggests that the other warships in a task group just defend the carrier, and that the carrier is passive. Submarines and frigates (in RN terminology) work in conjunction with the ASW helicopters. Continuously operating ASW helicopters around the clock requires a big deck with multiple aircraft.

Likewise a carrier's fighters are frequently controlled by an AAW destroyer.

All of this provides a defence over a large area, and the carrier may be used to protect things like amphibious forces or seaborne logistics - which was the main role of US and UK carriers during the Cold War, and is coming back to the fore in a new era of great power competition.

There must be a better term than 'escort'.

[rattman]

There must be a better term than 'escort'.

Just terminology in the end. Even the MOD cant be consistent, saw artful listed as part of the escorts making up CSG21, then latter they said CSG 21 + artful. In the end what ever term you want to use for it US and UK carrier battlegroups always have an SSN as a member of the CSG/CBG. Which for 21 is artful and not Astute.

[Gnadenburg]

as to the ASW australia has been focusing on it, with the new M-60R's and 14 posiedens

There is probably more likelihood too, of the Canberra Class LHD's having more of an ASW role with Allies, than landing mechanised infantry throughout the Pacific. A Canberra class LHD with a squadron of MH-60R's, would go some way in beefing up the single helicopter warships of the RAN and prove somewhat more useful than their envisioned amphibious roles in the event of Indo-Paciic naval conflict .

[Alt Flieger]

Article in the New York Times today expressing doubt over the whole project. Starting to look like too much submarine. No way are they going to be built in Adelaide. That is fantasy land.Hope this is not a fiasco in the making. Did everybody have their grownup pants on when they signed up for it ??

[rattman]

. Starting to look like too much submarine. No way are they going to be built in Adelaide. That is fantasy land.Hope this is not a fiasco in the making

Always said virginia is to much submarine. If you can figure out the reactor issue astute is a better buy for us. Cheaper, faster, quieter and less crew. Assuming VLS is not a big thing astute has more synergies with the RAN as it looks to be a more antisub focus

[henra]

Guess it's just interpretation.
The way I read the latest story was it was being suggested that Oz would build the entire front half, the US the entire back half, and then they'd be mated.
Both the Virginia and Astute boats are assembled in modules after all, so I suppose it's technically possible.

Wow.
Do both share the same Crossection?
If not who wins?
Or do you always go for the bigger of the two dimensions?
In an always cramped Sub if you need to squeeze your crap in a narrower or lower Hull, all Off- the- Shelf goes out the window and you start basically from scratch. Also all the piping and wiring will be a nightmare to combine.
This approach clearly sounds 'interesting'.

[rattman]

Wow.
Do both share the same Crossection?
If not who wins?
Or do you always go for the bigger of the two dimensions?
In an always cramped Sub if you need to squeeze your crap in a narrower or lower Hull, all Off- the- Shelf goes out the window and you start basically from scratch. Also all the piping and wiring will be a nightmare to combine.
This approach clearly sounds 'interesting'.

Hes not saying build the front half of an astute and tack it on to the back half of a virginia.



Submarines are built is sections and assembled together. Same way planes are built and even many ships are buiilt as blocks

[Video Mixdown]

Submarines are built is sections and assembled together.
Indeed. Many internal modules, like the command deck, are also built separately then slid into the partially assembled hull.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/620x388/astute3_1983803i_a66c9254f2d1e303b453dd8dfe5208215e09d36f.jp g
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/940x627/raftmounting_astute2_0fa58dfe48d54701bef62740debdcee67ca8f8d 3.jpg

The UK builds SSN & SSBN in a small town in NE England. I fail to see why so many hold the Australians to be incapable of replicating these facilities. True, the reactors and some other internal systems will have to be imported, but the rest is just marine engineering. What's the problem?

[Bengo]

Indeed. Many internal modules, like the command deck, are also built separately then slid into the partially assembled hull.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/620x388/astute3_1983803i_a66c9254f2d1e303b453dd8dfe5208215e09d36f.jp g
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/940x627/raftmounting_astute2_0fa58dfe48d54701bef62740debdcee67ca8f8d 3.jpg

The UK builds SSN & SSBN in a small town in NE England. I fail to see why so many hold the Australians to be incapable of replicating these facilities. True, the reactors and some other internal systems will have to be imported, but the rest is just marine engineering. What's the problem?

"Events, dear boy," and the experience to deal with them. The UK paused submarine building and rapidly found that without any work for the builders all the experience had been paid off. The vertical re- learning curve for Astute meant EB had to come and help BAE out.
I expect the expertise from building the Collins boats has also been dissipated so there will be a lot of things to re-learn, fast. The experience now exists in BAE and EB, but whether there is enough of it to expand from two build operations to three I don't know. Much depends on timescale for the first two or three boats. Go slowly and you can train Aussies in UK and US to assemble and to build in Oz. Be in a hurry and you need to buy ready made, or learn hard and expensive lessons as you go.
You also need a submarine design capability, but upkeep of the Collins boats should have retained that base expertise. Whether it can be expanded fast enough to both keep the existing boats safe and capable whilst sorting out the design work to incorporate Australian content in the new boats is moot.
None of this says that SSN building cannot be done in Oz. Only that it will take time, probably more
time than the pollies want, and it will not be cheap. After all, SSK building has been done before and no one is suggesting an Australian power plant.

N

[ORAC]

https://youtu.be/xpTI0-C8C_8

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I saw a link to this on LinkedIn a few moments ago: Australia looking at existing design to ‘accelerate’ delivery of nuclear-powered submarines (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/accelerate-australia-looking-at-existing-design-to-build-nuclear-powered-submarines-20211027-p593ji.html) - The Sydney Morning Herald

Vice Admiral Meade said the government was “looking at a mature design” and that could “accelerate the delivery of the first submarine in Australia in the 2030s”. He said “at the moment the aperture is wide” but the taskforce over the next 18 months will “narrow down the aperture and get us to the optimal pathway”.

[golder]

I'd call this an escalation. It was on the world stage and puts it at another level. It was not just for domestic consumption. The dummy spit to end all dummy spits. I'm still surprised by Australian civil response. I would have declared war by now. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JspIKr9lOOk

[tartare]

Thing is though - it's probably true.

[Ascend Charlie]

But who cares if we offend a Frenchman? I blow my nose at you! I fart in your general direction!

[tartare]

Diplomacy is to do and say the nastiest thing in the nicest way.

[Buster Hyman]

Thing is though - it's probably true.
Well, it’s back in Morrisons court now. Gloves are off so he can clearly release whatever details about how and when the French were advised, or he’s not got anything and then you’ll be right.

Personally, if that was me, I’d detail the timeline of events and go on to list the grievances and failings of the NG Subs.

[golder]

Morrison is starting to say what happened. It is well documented, that Australia was looking at canceling/not going forward with the contract some 18 months ago. A plan B

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI28p7OXRx0

[rattman]

Well, it’s back in Morrisons court now. Gloves are off so he can clearly release whatever details about how and when the French were advised, or he’s not got anything and then you’ll be right.

Personally, if that was me, I’d detail the timeline of events and go on to list the grievances and failings of the NG Subs.

From the AFR https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/i-don-t-like-losing-macron-knew-the-subs-contract-was-in-peril-20211101-p594xrEmmanuel Macron warned Scott Morrison in June “I don’t like losing” after the Prime Minister informed him over dinner that Australia felt the French submarines were not fit for purpose.

In September, two days before Mr Morrison announced the formation of the AUKUS alliance (https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/aukus-is-the-most-significant-step-of-our-time-says-dutton-20211020-p591hf) and was trying to set up a call with the French President to inform him of Australia’s decision to scrap the subs contract, Mr Macron messaged the Prime Minister to ask: “Should I expect good or bad news for our joint submarines ambitions?”

On the day before the announcement, Mr Macron refused to take Mr Morrison’s call which, the federal government believes, was because he knew what it was about.


Sounds a lot like what desperate X's do, if I dont pickup the phone we aren't broken up

[golder]

February 2021.
https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/02/25/what-we-know-today-thursday-february-25/
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has ordered a top level study to look at how to terminate the $90 billion contract, while also investigating alternative options to contract Swedish Shipbuilders Saab Kockums or renovate the Australian Navy’s current Collins Class fleet.

January 14, 2020
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/design-on-future-submarines-hits-nine-month-delay-20200114-p53rd2.htmlThe audit report also reveals that during negotiations over a key agreement with French company Naval Group in 2018, the federal government's hand-picked advisory group floated the idea of walking away from the contract with the French shipbuilder. The Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board told Defence that it should consider whether proceeding with the project was in the national interest "even if negotiations succeeded" with the Strategic Partnering Agreement.


Australia Reportedly Looking At An Alternative To Its Costly New French-Designed Submarines
JANUARY 19, 2021
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38790/australia-reportedly-looking-at-an-alternative-to-its-costly-new-french-designed-submarines

[The Helpful Stacker]

From the AFR https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/i-don-t-like-losing-macron-knew-the-subs-contract-was-in-peril-20211101-p594xrEmmanuel Macron warned Scott Morrison in June “I don’t like losing” after the Prime Minister informed him over dinner that Australia felt the French submarines were not fit for purpose.

In September, two days before Mr Morrison announced the formation of the AUKUS alliance (https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/aukus-is-the-most-significant-step-of-our-time-says-dutton-20211020-p591hf) and was trying to set up a call with the French President to inform him of Australia’s decision to scrap the subs contract, Mr Macron messaged the Prime Minister to ask: “Should I expect good or bad news for our joint submarines ambitions?”

On the day before the announcement, Mr Macron refused to take Mr Morrison’s call which, the federal government believes, was because he knew what it was about.


Sounds a lot like what desperate X's do, if I dont pickup the phone we aren't broken up

Macron is performing a very obvious "diplomatic flounce".

Given the pressure on him domestically his response is exactly as to be expected.

The one thing you can always count on French leaders to do when they don't get their own way is throw their toys out the pram. De Gaulle was a past master at it.

[Davef68]

Morrison is starting to say what happened. It is well documented, that Australia was looking at canceling/not going forward with the contract some 18 months ago. A plan B

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI28p7OXRx0

Quite impressed by a politician that can speak for 10 minutes on such a topic without any notes.

[golder]

Quite impressed by a politician that can speak for 10 minutes on such a topic without any notes.

Skills honed during daily parliamentary question time. I've never seen an aussie politician use a teleprompter. Reading a prepared speech, which is a basic in the US.

[Gnadenburg]

”Mr Morrison said the government would not “settle for less” and accept submarines that would be “obsolete before they hit the water“


This is in the detail yet in my opinion monumental. What advances are the CCP making in ASW to make the Barracuda obsolete by 2038?

Macron is proving to be just another French saboteur of alliances. He's out of line and a mug.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Just remember that the PLA(N) submarines might not be the super stealthy boats everyone seems to fear...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iAqv0PPX5I

[golder]

https://www.9news.com.au/national/scott-morrison-aukus-submarines-france-glasgow-climate-conference/62551745-9369-4af4-97d6-7d619e3ba97e
After he was branded a liar on camera by President Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister Scott Morrison hit back, claiming the leaked text message, obtained by the Australian Financial Review (https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/i-don-t-like-losing-macron-knew-the-subs-contract-was-in-peril-20211101-p594xr), showed the French knew the submarine contract was at risk.

Two days before the AUKUS coalition was set to be announced, with Mr Morrison reportedly trying to set up a call with Mr Macron to inform him the submarine deal was off, Mr Macron messaged Australia's prime minister to ask: "Should I expect good or bad news for our joint submarines ambitions?"

"I must say that I think the statements that were made questioning Australia's integrity and the slurs that have been placed on Australia, not me, I've got broad shoulders. I can deal with that," he said.
"But those slurs, I'm not going to cop sledging at Australia.
"I'm not going to cop that on behalf of Australians."

[megan]

Macron is just using theatrics as a political ploy to play to the home crowd. The fallout would seem to be that Macron is the one lying. If he really has a problem he can send some members from the action branch of the Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure to plant some limpet mines on a Australian war ship in Sydney Harbour and perhaps kill some people in the process. Something they've done previously when upset (Rainbow Warrior in Aukland Harbour).

[Alt Flieger]

The original mistake was signing a contract with France in the first place. Turnbull and the RAN screwed up. Why would you do it ? Only if you haven’t read history. Macron ? Think De Gaulle post WW2.
Not even the pretence of cooperative behaviour. Looking after number one always.
Soryu class was the obvious choice. Australian propensity for insisting on modifying everything to “local requirements “ screwed the deal.
We dont demand variations or home build for the F35 so why for subs?
Oh I forgot . Pork barrelling in South Australia. Thats what drives defence policy. Pathetic

[West Coast]

Macron is just using theatrics as a political ploy to play to the home crowd. The fallout would seem to be that Macron is the one lying. If he really has a problem he can send some members from the action branch of the Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure to plant some limpet mines on a Australian war ship in Sydney Harbour and perhaps kill some people in the process. Something they've done previously when upset (Rainbow Warrior in Aukland Harbour).

Macron was playing with toys in his backyard when that happened, but carry on.

[Asturias56]

"Pork barrelling in South Australia. That's what drives defence policy. Pathetic"

Same everywhere I'm afraid - F-4 Phantoms for the UK is a classic example.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/pinstripedline/status/1455620797612138504?s=21

[Gnadenburg]

“This program will deliver to the Royal Australian Navy 12 regionally-superior Attack-class submarines which are specially designed for Australia’s unique conditions.”

This from Naval Group early this year yet the bombshell from Australia's PM is that these submarines would be obsolete before they hit the water. If this spat gets ever more diplomatically ugly, detailing the extraordinary claims of block obsolescence of French submarines before they enter service will deliver only one winner. The CCP.

[rattman]

“This program will deliver to the Royal Australian Navy 12 regionally-superior Attack-class submarines which are specially designed for Australia’s unique conditions.”

This from Naval Group early this year yet the bombshell from Australia's PM is that these submarines would be obsolete before they hit the water. If this spat gets ever more diplomatically ugly, detailing the extraordinary claims of block obsolescence of French submarines before they enter service will deliver only one winner. The CCP.


NG are submitting the barracuda with AIP into contention for the indian program. final 4 are the barracuda, russian, South korean and spanish. So we might still see how good or bad it could have been

[Lookleft]

Macron was playing with toys in his backyard when that happened, but carry on.

But still growing up in a culture that thinks that form of behavior is acceptable. Immersed in a culture and a nationalistic mind set that thinks France is the dominant nation on the planet if only the rest of the world would accept that. Macron's great great grandparents would not have been born when Napoleon set out to demonstrate that thinking but it is still the attitude the French take to the world stage. Churchill was correct in destroying the French fleet at Mers El Kébir and Australia was correct in dumping the French subs. Both were done for the strategic interests of their respective countries.

[West Coast]

But still growing up in a culture that thinks that form of behavior is acceptable. Immersed in a culture and a nationalistic mind set that thinks France is the dominant nation on the planet if only the rest of the world would accept that. Macron's great great grandparents would not have been born when Napoleon set out to demonstrate that thinking but it is still the attitude the French take to the world stage. Churchill was correct in destroying the French fleet at Mers El Kébir and Australia was correct in dumping the French subs. Both were done for the strategic interests of their respective countries.

How is it you know that blowing up non combatant ships is accepted by the French culture in 2021?

I don’t believe any nation is that singularly minded that it’s culture as you put it condones sinking ships, now or then.

[megan]

Macron was playing with toys in his backyard when that happened, but carry onComprehension dear WC, where was it suggested Macron was responsible? Merely a reference to how France has dealt with issues in the past, could mention the Israel patrol boats and Mirages also.Churchill was correct in destroying the French fleet at Mers El KébirWC might want to read up on the Vichy.

[Lookleft]

I don’t believe any nation is that singularly minded that it’s culture as you put it condones sinking ships, now or then.

Well the French didn't vote Mitterand out for engaging in what was described as "State sponsored terrorism" so they did condone it then and IMHO would condone it now. You don't believe it, well that would be YHO.

[golder]

How can you criticise France? An honest and upfront nation. They would never lie and deceive. It is an insult to France to cast such dispersions.

I believe them when the French government denied all knowledge of the ACT OF WAR. In the operation to bomb and sink the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2019/08/25/august-26-1985-rainbow-warrior-attack/

[West Coast]

Comprehension dear WC, where was it suggested Macron was responsible? Merely a reference to how France has dealt with issues in the past, could mention the Israel patrol boats and Mirages also.WC might want to read up on the Vichy.

Comprehension old boy. I never suggested you did. Merely pointed out Macron wasn’t politically of that era.

[megan]

Comprehension old boy. I never suggested you did. Merely pointed out Macron wasn’t politically of that eraThat has to be one of the worlds greatest revelations, a bit like saying JFK wasn't politically active in WWI. A pointless post you made, just as this is.

[Slippery_Pete]

Don’t get me wrong… I hate Morrison as much as the next guy.

But France need to get over it. Australia exited, at an agreed exit point, which was written into the contract and agreed to by the French.

Their conduct since (immediately recalling ambassador for a few days, public comments claiming Australia lied, and general throwing of toys out of the pram) has been like watching a two year old throw a tantrum.

Its a pity they didn’t fight this hard during WW2.

Rest assured, if the ADF needs a new contract to supply white surrender flags, they’ll give the French a call.

[balboa1968]

Don’t get me wrong… I hate Morrison as much as the next guy.

But France need to get over it. Australia exited, at an agreed exit point, which was written into the contract and agreed to by the French.

Their conduct since (immediately recalling ambassador for a few days, public comments claiming Australia lied, and general throwing of toys out of the pram) has been like watching a two year old throw a tantrum.

Its a pity they didn’t fight this hard during WW2.

Rest assured, if the ADF needs a new contract to supply white surrender flags, they’ll give the French a call.
Do not worry mate. France is the most successful military power in history. Today, French military would take Australia in less than a week, even it is at 18000 Km away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France

And , if we had a true president , and not a sodomite, Australia would be a little more respectfull.

Nb I do not care about the subs, if they will be french , US, UK, or Chineses .

[ORAC]

It is true that France has fought in more major European conflicts than any other European nation - mainly because most were fought in France.

The UK, on the other hand, tended to fight further afield.

It was DeGaulle who remarked that the thing he most respected about the British was that they always had the sense to fight their wars in someone else’s country….

[NumptyAussie]

Do not worry mate. France is the most successful military power in history. Today, French military would take Australia in less than a week, even it is at 18000 Km away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France

And , if we had a true president , and not a sodomite, Australia would be a little more respectfull.

Nb I do not care about the subs, if they will be french , US, UK, or Chineses .

This could be an interesting thought exercise.

When does your week start? From leaving France or upon landfall?

[Gnadenburg]

Do not worry mate. France is the most successful military power in history. Today, French military would take Australia in less than a week, even it is at 18000 Km away.

I think this is a principal issue with your submarines. Nobody really knows whose side you would be on. Your China policy is soft and ambiguous and France's military commitment to the region has been unexceptional.

The submarine deal was a mistake. We were lied to about timeframes, capabilities, offsets and industry participation. Australia was gouged as no Plan B. We pursued a Plan B last year and the French knew this- they just didn't think nukes would be an option. Then Macron labelled our PM a liar and when evidence to the contrary, French diplomats crying afoul.

The whole affair has fallen predictably into the hands of the CCP. They are on your side BTW. Mortified at Australia not committing to French submarines. I wonder why?

Australia now has to investigate any French-made military equipment in service. This dispute has gone far enough to suggest supply and support chains vulnerable in the future.

[Ascend Charlie]

Looking at the French helicopters in Oz service, I can understand why we didn't want their submarines either.

Scomo is doing the right think for our country, tough luck for France that they are not getting our billion$.

[Alt Flieger]

I think this is a principal issue with your submarines. Nobody really knows whose side you would be on. Your China policy is soft and ambiguous and France's military commitment to the region has been unexceptional.

The submarine deal was a mistake. We were lied to about timeframes, capabilities, offsets and industry participation. Australia was gouged as no Plan B. We pursued a Plan B last year and the French knew this- they just didn't think nukes would be an option. Then Macron labelled our PM a liar and when evidence to the contrary, French diplomats crying afoul.

The whole affair has fallen predictably into the hands of the CCP. They are on your side BTW. Mortified at Australia not committing to French submarines. I wonder why?

Australia now has to investigate any French-made military equipment in service. This dispute has gone far enough to suggest supply and support chains vulnerable in the future.

Agree.
France is not the aggrieved party. Australia is.
Lesson ? Forget any military procurement deal with France for the foreseeable future.
The mystery is why anybody thought the deal was a good one in the first place.
The really interesting back story that I haven’t heard much about is how the US and UK were convinced to hand over the Crown Jewels of submarine technology. It may still not get past Congress.

[rattman]

Agree.
Lesson ? Forget any military procurement deal with France for the foreseeable future.


Honestly still surprised we haven't cancelled the open bases agreement with the french.

[Buster Hyman]

Honestly still surprised we haven't cancelled the open bases agreement with the french.
If they make a base in Pt. Hedland, then please, carry on...:E

[Asturias56]

"I haven’t heard much about is how the US and UK were convinced to hand over the Crown Jewels of submarine technology"

A great deal is secret of course but I'm pretty sure the Russians have access to most of it anyway - the real challenge is BUILDING the boats according to the spec.......

[rattman]

If they make a base in Pt. Hedland, then please, carry on...:E

Looking further hard to see if its was actually signed or still under negoiation. If it was under negoiation its a dead duck


French warships and troops would be given guaranteed access to Australian naval bases and military sites under a proposal being discussed by both countries, as the federal government moves to lock in the next stage of its troubled $90 billion future submarine program next week. That was a news report from the 10th a few days before aukus

[balboa1968]

Looking at the French helicopters in Oz service, I can understand why we didn't want their submarines either.

Scomo is doing the right think for our country, tough luck for France that they are not getting our billion$.

French helicopters are fighting wars all over the world, looks like the ozzie armed forces are not up to the job ! I wonder how would you deal with nuke subs ?

[balboa1968]

Honestly still surprised we haven't cancelled the open bases agreement with the french.

Why should France need any bases in Australia ? France has territories in all oceans on earth, why do we need anything from you ?

[rjtjrt]

I suspect balboa is recceguy with another posting name.
Ignore him and he will just go away. Replying to his drivel just keeps giving him oxygen.

[Gnadenburg]

The French will eventually need close alignment in the Pacific to counter China. Their EEZ's around their territories will at a convenient stage, be targeted by China. It's a pity Australia and France couldn't work through their differences: one wanted a submarine capability and the other a "relationship" with bottomless finance to provide shipyard jobs in Brittany.


BTW. Germany is looking to ditch their Tiger helicopters too. That's if they can get past the Franco-German politics and buy American. Or perhaps they'd prefer not to upset France and have 8 of 50 Tigers available at any time?

[rattman]

America may even follow Australia’s lead by fielding a similar Gulfstream-based replacement for their (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10717/protests-mount-against-usaf-plan-to-replace-aging-jamming-planes?iid=sr-link1) EC-130 Compass Call electronic warfare aircraft.

Slightly OT but with australia whipping out its cheque book recently, assuming the brazilian government would let if go we should buy embraer. For about 4.5 billion AUD seems an interesting buy, the E-jets are quite popular in australia, the 390 seems an interesting possible replacement for the hercs. The govt recently funded telstra to buy the pacific telecom network, maybe someone could buy embraer with financial assistance from the government

[megan]

Why should France need any bases in Australia ? France has territories in all oceans on earth, why do we need anything from youYou need Australia so you have a refueling point to get to your Pacific territories, we see your military pass through whenever they are in transit.

PS: you going to turn up at Pitch Black 2022?

[Alt Flieger]

And France needs to maintain a presence in the Pacific exactly why ?
Fond memories of a long distant past ?
Take away the Force de Frappe and France is only a middle power with no power projection capability.
Why do they pretend they are are a tier 1 power ? What is the strategic justification?
We should have gone with the Soryu class.
The French contract was always a dumb idea.

[rattman]

You need Australia so you have a refueling point to get to your Pacific territories, we see your military pass through whenever they are in transit.

PS: you going to turn up at Pitch Black 2022?

Betting the invitation is going to be lost in the mail

[golder]

Honestly still surprised we haven't cancelled the open bases agreement with the french.
I'm happy to tease the croaking frogs. They don't realise that they live in a little pond and think they are a world power.
Even though France needs Australian bases, more than Australia needs France. Military to military alliances don't work like that and will be fine at the end of the day. These 2 clowns, playing for re-election early next year. Will sooner or later be out of office. I'll be surprised if Rafales weren't at Pitch Black next year.

[finestkind]

France had the largest Army in Europe at the start of WW2 and had months of the phoney War to prepare for the German invasion and still lost....

TBM the post was not about win or loose. It was about people stating they just rolled up and went back to cheese and wine. Same with Italy and the cracks about 8 reverse gears and one forward. As in any defence force there are some very brave people and some brave people. When we have had centuries of war that flow into millennium, perhaps our cultural attitude towards war may be far more pragmatic.

In respect to balboa1968, please do not scare him off. I haven't laughed so hard for a long time. I can not think of anything more funny than an arrogant ignoramus . The arrogance of a Frenchman (we are the best lovers, drinkers, smokers, fighters, viva la France) combined with the ignorance of an American (we won WW1, WW11, and have saved the world and continue to do so) is a comic combination that is unbeatable.

[Asturias56]

"Take away the Force de Frappe and France is only a middle power with no power projection capability."

Could say much the same about one of the other AUSUS partners I guess - but the French would point out they actually own their missiles - they don't rent them by the hour

[ehwatezedoing]

lol
Say whatever you want about French loosing wars. Doesn't matter who helped or not along the way, fact is France is still called France, still French speaking with its French culture, food, etc...

Grow some balls, stop complaining and just do like them:
Have your own aviation, missile, boat, submarine industries so you can keep your "Independence" and choose whatever weird local options you want to add to your war toys.

Oops... Sorry, you cannot! But you will still going to blame the French because it's fashionable :p

[golder]

We do like to have Tier 1 toys though, unlike France. We can also keep an aircraft in the air. After a French Google, your aircraft availability is in the 50% range. Even Russia does better than that. You guys still can't get an engine to work.

Haute intensité : L'aviation de combat française présente des fragilités qui peinent à se réduire - Zone Militaire (http://www.opex360.com/2021/11/02/haute-intensite-laviation-de-combat-francaise-presente-des-fragilites-qui-peinent-a-se-reduire/)
“Taking into account the issues related to the engine and the level of operational support [NSO], the operational technical availability [DTO] of the Rafale [air and navy] reached 55.8% in the first half of 2021. The Mirage D availability, 32.4%

[rattman]

The french ambassador addressed the national press club. Tried to watch it but after 20 minutes of whinning and lieing about the sub deal just turned it off

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udzOfEBH5wU

Kept going on about how france was giving australia "national secrets" about it nuclear subs. Also omitted they are submitting the same design to india P-75i, so giving them to india as well

[golder]

They were just designing the physical sub, The US were providing the 'secret' electronics and weapons.

[rattman]

They were just designing the physical sub, The US were providing the 'secret' electronics and weapons.

Yep they were providing the hull which they are also trying to provide to india, they were going to provide the propulsion which logic says its just going to be upgraded tech from the scorpenes, which are currently used or on order by 6 countries.

[Alt Flieger]

They were just designing the physical sub, The US were providing the 'secret' electronics and weapons.

It was always a question mark over the project as whether or not the USA would be happy to install a combat control system on a French sub.
They leak like a sieve after all.
And for those who are dismissive about Australia’s technical ability , you are ignorant.
I worked for DRCS and DSTO back in the 80s and can tell you the research and development capability is substantial.
Australia made a deliberate decision to walk away from nuclear power back in the70’s. Billy McMahon didn’t like it. Big mistake.
But we could do it in a heart-beat if we wanted to.

[finestkind]

lol
Say whatever you want about French loosing wars. Doesn't matter who helped or not along the way, fact is France is still called France, still French speaking with its French culture, food, etc...

Grow some balls, stop complaining and just do like them:
Have your own aviation, missile, boat, submarine industries so you can keep your "Independence" and choose whatever weird local options you want to add to your war toys.

Oops... Sorry, you cannot! But you will still going to blame the French because it's fashionable :pFrance is still France. So do you mean that France is no different to what it was 40, 80 years ago?

Basic economics. It is cheaper to buy something that someone else has designed, tested, and produced than to do so yourself especially when you have a relatively small population. Basic economics’ and a move away from who has the biggest genitals as a way of proving superiority.

Blaming the French? I think the angst is coming from the French as it appears that contractual obligation, inclusive of exit clauses, was adhered too.

[rattman]

I also found interesting that NG has not updated their website. Still has all the info and is pushing the sub contract with australia everywhere

[Asturias56]

"And for those who are dismissive about Australia’s technical ability , you are ignorant. I worked for DRCS and DSTO back in the 80s and can tell you the research and development capability is substantial."

I don't think anyone disagrees - the problem isn't R&D - it's building them to time and cost . The shipyard in S Australia hasn't a great record on delivery - but that's not just an Australian problem - Canada, Russia & India all struggle. Even the USA and UK have problems - modern warships, like modern combat aircraft, are fiendishly difficult to build

[ORAC]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/09/australia-promises-jobs-to-workers-stranded-by-scrapping-of-french-submarine-deal

Australia promises jobs to workers stranded by scrapping of French submarine deal

“Each and every” skilled shipbuilding worker affected by the federal government’s decision to scrap the existing $90bn submarine project and switch to nuclear-powered boats will have a job in the future, defence industry minister Melissa Price says.

As ongoing controversies surround the plan, Price will tell a major submarine conference in Adelaide on Tuesday that the submarines will be built in South Australia……

Defence officials told senate estimates in October that the future of up to 600 construction jobs was uncertain after the government scrapped the existing project. Another 560 people are employed directly on the existing project.

Many companies had invested in resources to become part of the supply chain for the submarines that were being bought from France’s Naval Group.

In a pre-recorded message Price said she understood the uncertainty the decision had created. She said small and medium businesses affected would be supported to compete for future work across defence programs, and that individual workers would find new jobs through a sovereign shipbuilding talent pool.

Workers will be redeployed to other projects, such as maintenance of and upgrades to the Collins-class submarines, or placed with overseas shipbuilders or governments. Others will have the opportunity to get new skills, or train in nuclear power.

“We have a solid commitment to find a role within that pool for each and every skilled shipbuilding worker affected by this announcement,” Price said.

“We will be building nuclear-powered submarines in South Australia.”….

[minigundiplomat]

"Take away the Force de Frappe and France is only a middle power with no power projection capability."

Could say much the same about one of the other AUSUS partners I guess - but the French would point out they actually own their missiles - they don't rent them by the hour

Best go and ask the garlic munchers in Mali why they are dependent on the C17 and Chinooks from the other middle power, even if they do rent their missiles.

No opportunity to knock the UK missed eh, Asturius!

[Asturias56]

Well MGD - they are putting infantry on the ground in a former colony..............

[Not_a_boffin]

"Take away the Force de Frappe and France is only a middle power with no power projection capability."

Could say much the same about one of the other AUSUS partners I guess - but the French would point out they actually own their missiles - they don't rent them by the hour

A spectacular misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the actual state of affairs.

Well MGD - they are putting infantry on the ground in a former colony..............

Infantry extensively supported by the UK - including with BotG.

[Asturias56]

Pretty pointless trying to sub-divide contributions in joint operations. The French are leading in Mali with UK and other support, the UK leads in other areas with allied support

remember that the UK was dependent for several years on NATO to provide marine recce - which a lot of people (including me) found unbelievable for a maritime nation.

That's the point of alliances - and we shouldn't resort to simple nationalistic point scoring if we want them to continue.

The alternative is a vast increase in spending (which won't happen) or a big cut in what we can do (which I think would be unwise)

[The Helpful Stacker]

Pretty pointless trying to sub-divide contributions in joint operations. The French are leading in Mali with UK and other support, the UK leads in other areas with allied support

remember that the UK was dependent for several years on NATO to provide marine recce - which a lot of people (including me) found unbelievable for a maritime nation.

That's the point of alliances - and we shouldn't resort to simple nationalistic point scoring if we want them to continue.

The alternative is a vast increase in spending (which won't happen) or a big cut in what we can do (which I think would be unwise)

Given your previous, quite obvious, "nationalistic point scoring" you'll excuse me if I find your attempt to now appear the voice of reason not just a little laughable.

[T28B]

If you would all like to engage in a discussion about the operations in Mali, and the air support pertaining to said operations, please begin a new thread on that and I'll move the posts over to that thread.
(It is certainly on topic for Military Aviation)

Please do not bloat the AUKUS/Submarine thread with that off-topic (for this thread) discussion.
Thanks in advance.

[West Coast]

Forbes op/ed advocating for Australia to learn the ropes of nuke boat ops with retiring Los Angeles class submarines.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2021/09/20/everybody-wins-if-australia-gets-new-los-angeles-class-subs-asap/?sh=22c455d44a6b

[rattman]

Probably one of the best and a well thought out articles on the nuclear submarine deal

https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-submarines-for-australia-what-are-the-options/

[Alt Flieger]

Excellent article rattman.

Looking more like strategic overreach every day.

Why does the RAN think it needs the capability to patrol as far away as the Bering Strait and engage the Chinese in their home waters ?
Surely the main game is defending the approaches to Australia and the Sunda and Malacca straits.
Why dissipate a limited capability with strategic overreach and mission creep ?
The Yanks and maybe the Japanese are the only ones who need the capability to engage the Chinese in the South China Sea.
Why are we even thinking about it ?

[golder]

Forbes op/ed advocating for Australia to learn the ropes of nuke boat ops with retiring Los Angeles class submarines.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2021/09/20/everybody-wins-if-australia-gets-new-los-angeles-class-subs-asap/?sh=22c455d44a6b
Although getting an old nuke sub was an option put forward by the politicians. A recent Senate budget hearing was told ADF intends to gap the Collins sub. With other platforms and weapons. This life extension is for 10 years and there may not be enough hull life left to do a second life extension. So we will see what the next 16 months brings.

[rattman]

Although getting an old nuke sub was an option put forward by the politicians. A recent Senate budget hearing was told ADF intends to gap the Collins sub. With other platforms and weapons. This life extension is for 10 years and there may not be enough hull life left to do a second life extension. So we will see what the next 16 months brings.

Wonder if the option just to buy some dosans off SK while we wait. They are knocked the first out in 2 1/2 years laid down to launch then another 2-3 to commission . Collin life extension is 6 billion for 6 subs, dosans are about a 1billion USD. Sure costs more but you got a new sub and 6 VLS tubes. SK builds 2 in korea to get them to us ASAP, we build the next 4 locally and use the window to start to get our a manpower to speed. By the time we had finished theres an active plan ready for what ever nuclear

[West Coast]

Excellent article rattman.

Looking more like strategic overreach every day.

Why does the RAN think it needs the capability to patrol as far away as the Bering Strait and engage the Chinese in their home waters ?
Surely the main game is defending the approaches to Australia and the Sunda and Malacca straits.
Why dissipate a limited capability with strategic overreach and mission creep ?
The Yanks and maybe the Japanese are the only ones who need the capability to engage the Chinese in the South China Sea.
Why are we even thinking about it ?

How far from Australian shores should a submarine have to go to defend the approaches to the homeland in your opinion? Safe to say they’d have to stay there for a period of time.

[Alt Flieger]

How far from Australian shores should a submarine have to go to defend the approaches to the homeland in your opinion? Safe to say they’d have to stay there for a period of time.

During the Cold War having the ability to patrol the North Pacific (ie The Soviet Union) made perfect sense.
But the Cold War is over.
Deploying an Attack class nuclear submarine in the South China Sea is something totally different. It is either area denial , which comes close to an act of war, or it is to interdict Chinese submarines to prevent a second strike from their SLBMs.
Hard to see how either are within the scope of Australia’s strategic interests.
We are not a global power seeking to project power.
Taking on China as if we are is a big mistake.
Looks to me like a potential cluster f……

[West Coast]

During the Cold War having the ability to patrol the North Pacific (ie The Soviet Union) made perfect sense.
But the Cold War is over.
Deploying an Attack class nuclear submarine in the South China Sea is something totally different. It is either area denial , which comes close to an act of war, or it is to interdict Chinese submarines to prevent a second strike from their SLBMs.
Hard to see how either are within the scope of Australia’s strategic interests.
We are not a global power seeking to project power.
Taking on China as if we are is a big mistake.
Looks to me like a potential cluster f……


The areas you mentioned (straights, approaches to Oz) are still a fair distance from your shores. The time on station in these areas is significantly less for a conventionally powered submarine compared to a nuclear one. Towards the beginning of the thread, there’s a link that compares time on station vs distance from Australia. Can’t speak to the accuracy of it, but if it’s even close, the differences are significant.

You don’t have to sail within sight of China to yield benefits of operating a nuclear submarine.

[Alt Flieger]

The areas you mentioned (straights, approaches to Oz) are still a fair distance from your shores. The time on station in these areas is significantly less for a conventionally powered submarine compared to a nuclear one. Towards the beginning of the thread, there’s a link that compares time on station vs distance from Australia. Can’t speak to the accuracy of it, but if it’s even close, the differences are significant.

You don’t have to sail within sight of China to yield benefits of operating a nuclear submarine.

The biggest disadvantages of conventional submarines are the “ indiscretion rate “ and speed. The Collins class cant keep up with a US Carrier Group for example.
But they have more than enough endurance for home waters defence.
Still reckon the Virginia Class is way too much submarine.
I will be surprised if it ever happens.
Should have just gone with the Soryu class with an American TCC system.

[West Coast]

The biggest disadvantages of conventional submarines are the “ indiscretion rate “ and speed. The Collins class cant keep up with a US Carrier Group for example.
But they have more than enough endurance for home waters defence.
Still reckon the Virginia Class is way too much submarine.
I will be surprised if it ever happens.
Should have just gone with the Soryu class with an American TCC system.

Well, I’ll leave it by acknowledging someone in charge in Australia sees the value nuke boats add.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/chiefofairstaff/status/1461384934594170881?s=21

[tartare]

Reading that Hennessy book that an earlier poster mentioned.
Fascinating - can highly recommend it - crikey - the risks that British submariners took in the 50s sailing up to Nova Zemlya etc.
And Rickover sounds like a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work.
The battle by the Brits to get the US to hand over the reactor technology places the significance of the AUKUS announcement in correct context.
It really is a huge deal for the Americans to agree to hand over the technology to anyone else.

[golder]

During the Cold War having the ability to patrol the North Pacific (ie The Soviet Union) made perfect sense.
But the Cold War is over.
Deploying an Attack class nuclear submarine in the South China Sea is something totally different. It is either area denial , which comes close to an act of war, or it is to interdict Chinese submarines to prevent a second strike from their SLBMs.
Hard to see how either are within the scope of Australia’s strategic interests.
We are not a global power seeking to project power.
Taking on China as if we are is a big mistake.
Looks to me like a potential cluster f……
Even the old Orion played the the SCS
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/missions-secret-australian-submarines-cold-war-revealed.html

The video showed a very clear footage cleverly taken by HMAS Orion. The submarine skillfully escaped the unwanted notice of the Soviet Charlie-class nuclear submarine by sneaking beneath and behind the Soviet sub as it headed towards the Soviet naval base.

The footage took images of the Soviet submarine as it was headed towards the Vietnamese port. The camera was secured on the periscope of the Orion which took the footage as the submarine dangerously floated on the rough sea. The location was set 12-nautical miles or 22.2 kilometers outside of Vietnamese territorial limit.

The Orion then took a deep dive close behind the Soviet sub and then to a barely submerged depth again following the surfacing of the Soviet submarine. The prime minister was glued to the video alarmed as he watched the propeller of the Soviet sub in close proximity to the Orion. He also took a glimpse of the Soviet Charlie-class technology from underneath including the ship’s sonar and hull.

The Orion then positioned ahead and still beneath of the Soviet submarine. Pitt then maneuvered the Orion to almost a halt. The Soviet sub hummed pass by without a clue of the watching Australian eyes allowing the Orion to get clear images of the other side of its hull. The photographs and the video itself provided intelligence that could only be gathered if spies were to infiltrate and take the images on the dry Vietnamese port.

[TBM-Legend]

Even the old Orion played the the SCS
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/missions-secret-australian-submarines-cold-war-revealed.html

The video showed a very clear footage cleverly taken by HMAS Orion. The submarine skillfully escaped the unwanted notice of the Soviet Charlie-class nuclear submarine by sneaking beneath and behind the Soviet sub as it headed towards the Soviet naval base.

The footage took images of the Soviet submarine as it was headed towards the Vietnamese port. The camera was secured on the periscope of the Orion which took the footage as the submarine dangerously floated on the rough sea. The location was set 12-nautical miles or 22.2 kilometers outside of Vietnamese territorial limit.

The Orion then took a deep dive close behind the Soviet sub and then to a barely submerged depth again following the surfacing of the Soviet submarine. The prime minister was glued to the video alarmed as he watched the propeller of the Soviet sub in close proximity to the Orion. He also took a glimpse of the Soviet Charlie-class technology from underneath including the ship’s sonar and hull.

The Orion then positioned ahead and still beneath of the Soviet submarine. Pitt then maneuvered the Orion to almost a halt. The Soviet sub hummed pass by without a clue of the watching Australian eyes allowing the Orion to get clear images of the other side of its hull. The photographs and the video itself provided intelligence that could only be gathered if spies were to infiltrate and take the images on the dry Vietnamese port.


The true value of subs. My view is that we need 6 boomers and say 6 smaller boats to cover the deep ocean vast distances and a littoral sub...

[West Coast]

The true value of subs. My view is that we need 6 boomers and say 6 smaller boats to cover the deep ocean vast distances and a littoral sub...

Well, you just ensured at least a few more pages from the thread with the boomer comment.

[tartare]

...With 24 locked and loaded specials... :E
Most Orstrayians don't realise how dead set their nation was on getting The Bomb.
Snowy Mountains Power scheme's primary purpose was to generate power for Australia's Manhattan Project.
And ANU was to be it's Princeton.
Or at least that was Wayne Reynolds case in Australia's Bid for the Bomb.
He makes a convincing if controversial argument.

[layman]

tartare

Happened to at Jervis Bay today. The plan was for nuclear reactor there to produce weapons grade uranium.

I think it was only in 1969 the government finally conceded it wasn’t going to happen.

Wayne Reynolds book - short synopsis at:
https://www.mup.com.au/books/australias-bid-for-the-atomic-bomb-electronic-book-text

Personally I found his book to be very enlightening.

[golder]

Allowing the detonation of 12 UK nuke bombs was out ticket to the UK show. We didn't even need to do it on our own. I don't know who said no. I think the US told the UK to tell us? End of story, no bomb, a non-proliferation treaty and under the nuke umbrella of the US/UK.
https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/sources-radiation/more-radiation-sources/british-nuclear-weapons-testing
Nuclear weapons testing occurred from 1952 to 1963 at Maralinga, South Australia; Montebello Islands, Western Australia and Emu Field, South Australia.

[tartare]

tartare

Happened to at Jervis Bay today. The plan was for nuclear reactor there to produce weapons grade uranium.

I think it was only in 1969 the government finally conceded it wasn’t going to happen.

Wayne Reynolds book - short synopsis at:
https://www.mup.com.au/books/australias-bid-for-the-atomic-bomb-electronic-book-text

Personally I found his book to be very enlightening.
Sure was.
Drove down to Jervis Bay with family and went out to the reactor site.
Foundations still visible.
If Gorton had his way, things would have been very different, and perhaps not in a bad way either.

[rattman]

The text of the aukus treaty has been released

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/ENNPIA/Treaty_being_considered

[tartare]

Wow.
There it is.
The first time since the 1960s that the United States has agreed to share some of it's crown jewels with anyone other than Britain.
Historic.

[rattman]

And china's reply
https://www.9news.com.au/world/china-leader-xi-jinping-pushes-for-nuclear-weapons-free-south-east-asia/6d37305d-8b5f-4444-a4b3-a19b5dfdca18


In a diplomatic response to the agreement, China's President Xi Jinping (https://www.9news.com.au/world/china-politics-president-xi-jinping-seeking-a-third-term-at-communist-party-meeting/3868ce48-6894-42d6-8708-51c877617163) proposed a Southeast Asia nuclear weapon-free treaty.
Mr Xi announced his plan during a virtual summit of leaders from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
"China supports ASEAN's efforts to build a nuclear weapon-free zone, and is prepared to sign the Protocol to the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone as early as possible," Mr Xi Jinping said.
The Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone is an agreement signed in 1995 between 10 Southeast Asian member-states.

[tartare]

So this is the Bangkok Treaty of 1995 - right?
Assume the proposal is to freeze in place what nuclear weapons states in the region already have?
So, China gets to keep missiles and SSBNs, and promises to build no more, but in return Australia agrees not to acquire nuclear powered boats?
If that's correct - sounds like a bit of a ****e deal...

[fdr]

How far from Australian shores should a submarine have to go to defend the approaches to the homeland in your opinion? Safe to say they’d have to stay there for a period of time.

1. The simplest tracking n' targetting solution is proximate to the home port of your playmate. Open ocean tracking sucks biggly, but there are ways n means.
2. An AUS boat assisting the defence of a USN carrier group is a lovely story, not one that the USN skimmer drivers would be so pleased about. (blood is thicker than anechoic rubber)
3. If I had a choice of target to chase between an SSN and an SSK, that is a no-brainer.
4. boat drivers still like to look n' see. Got photos somewhere of the attack periscope of a 688i (nice camo) chasing a DIII.

AUS defence needs boats, enough to have a credible number out in the playpen at any time, so that their exact location becomes both a tactical and a strategic issue for those that may have a grumpy disposition. Range is not an issue, nor is transit speed. What is needed is FOBs that permit a number of quiet boats to be an inconvenience to the planning of those with a case of excessive testosterone.

All navies have manpower deficits, particularly of long lead skills. Last time I looked, AUS had more boats than crews, Time to get reserve programs working.

As nice as a new shiny, glow in the dark toy set is, I would have thunked that a big buy of SSKs would be a better defence posture, coupled to enough manpower to keep a large number out in the open sea at any given time.

Better yet, a bunch of standoff armed drones.

Whatever, don't plan on having GPS based guidance, in the SCS area, the unannounced GPS jamming is becoming an irritant, along with the PLAF/PLANF bleatings of their hurt feelings on "their safety being compromised" by nations that are actually compliant with the UNCLOS. 121.5 is now apparently a PRC propaganda freq.

[tartare]

For all those Australians whining about nuclear power not being safe - and nukular reactors sitting on docks in the middle of cities - there's an astonishing story buried in that submarine book.
HMS Valiant - in 1977 - under power when the Captain gets summoned back to the tunnel above the reactor compartment, and looks down through the thick window onto the reactor (a fascinating detail in itself).
He describes it as normally well lit and cathedral like - full of complex machinery - and radiation of course; completely sealed.
But in this case, the entire reactor compartment is full of seawater - due to a pipe leak - while the reactor is running!
They shut it down, drain the seawater - then restart it.
And it runs just fine - despite having being submerged in saltwater.
Testimony to the engineering.

[golder]

Wow.
There it is.
The first time since the 1960s that the United States has agreed to share some of it's crown jewels with anyone other than Britain.
Historic.
Except for the time they gave France, their land based, marine nuke engine. That they used to make their 'own'.

[tartare]

Except for the time they gave France, their land based, marine nuke engine. That they used to make their 'own'.

Please elaborate? (out of interest)
Are you referring to Le Redoutable's reactor?
Or the earlier Q-244?
7 May 1959: Under the Franco-American Defense Agreement of 1959, the U.S. provided France with 440 kg of enriched uranium for use only in a land-based submarine reactor prototype.
U.S. Congress refused to grant France access to classified submarine reactor design information.
1959: The Q-244 project was finally abandoned.
V comprehensive presentation here on all nations nuclear marine capabilities/history:
http://www.lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Part-4_UK-France-Others-60-yrs-of-marine-nuc-power.pdf

[rattman]

Please elaborate? (out of interest)
Are you referring to Le Redoutable's reactor?
Or the earlier Q-244?
7 May 1959: Under the Franco-American Defense Agreement of 1959, the U.S. provided France with 440 kg of enriched uranium for use only in a land-based submarine reactor prototype.
U.S. Congress refused to grant France access to classified submarine reactor design information.
1959: The Q-244 project was finally abandoned.
V comprehensive presentation here on all nations nuclear marine capabilities/history:
http://www.lynceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Part-4_UK-France-Others-60-yrs-of-marine-nuc-power.pdf

Believe nixon assisted france with nuclear bomb and propulsion tech under the table, wanted more targets for russia but didn't want to be seen to be helping france develop it

[tartare]

Didn't know that.
V intriguing.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/us-secret-assistance-to-the-french-nuclear-program-1969-1975-fourth-country-to-strategic

[golder]

Given that publicly they were refused. It's possible what i was told is wrong, or may have been a mix of stories. With Nixon and such. The story I was told would have been the Q-244. As well as the uranium. There was a sub, nuke power plant for land base only. it may have been components provided? To assist the land-based plant.

[Going Boeing]

There’s been some interesting posts on this thread and I think the decision to cancel the Attack class submarine was the correct action in the current political climate - for quite a number of reasons. The key development allowing the RAN to purchase/build SSN’s is the availability of reactors that have sufficient fuel for the life of the vessel. This means that there is no requirement to build the massive infrastructure to handle radioactive material or rely on other nations to refuel the vessels. Even though the new nuclear powered submarines will not be operational for many years, the decision has sent a strong signal that the West will stand united and will not allow expansionist aggression by any country to occur.

A number of people have expressed concern about a potential gap between the Collins class retirement and the future SSN’s becoming operational, but the planned Collins Life of Type Extension (LOTE) should adequately cover that period.

I understand that the fatigue checks on the 6 boats has confirmed that all the hulls are suitable for the LOTE and, if the information on Wikipedia is accurate, these hulls have better steel than even the Virginia class SSN’s.

“ The hull is constructed from a high-tensile micro-alloy steel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-alloy_steel), developed by Swedish steel manufacturer SSAB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSAB), and improved by BHP of Australia, which was lighter and easier to weld than the HY-80 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HY-80) (LA class) or HY-100 (Virginia class) nickel-alloy steel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloy_steel) used in contemporary submarine construction projects, while providing better results in explosion bulge testing (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Explosion_bulge_test&action=edit&redlink=1).”

The first boat (HMAS Farncomb) is to commence the LOTE in 2026 in conjunction with a planned 2 year full-cycle docking. The aim is to try to complete the LOTE within those 2 years but, being the first to go through the process, it is expected to run a little overtime, possibly as long as an additional year. On completion, it will have 10 more years of operational service before its expected retirement circa 2039. The LOTE will involve separation of hull sections to allow replacement of all 3 diesel generator units, the main electric motor with possible replacement of batteries, fitment of telescopic photonic masts & acoustic upgrades. It may also involve sonar upgrades if they haven’t been previously fitted to the vessel.

Subsequent vessels are programmed to follow every two years with the last boat to complete the LOTE, HMAS Rankin, possibly retiring after 2048 so that should allow sufficient time for the first 4 SSN’s built in Australia to be operational.

The Collins class is currently experiencing good availability and all are now fitted with the AN/BYG-1 combat system (same as Virginia & retro-fitted to the LA class) and are thus performing well. They are getting a number of Sonar upgrades, a Modular Cylindrical Array (MCA) based on Sonar Type 2076 submarine technology developed by Thales teams in the UK (as fitted to the Astute class). The existing flank array will be replaced by the latest generation flank array as well as new High Frequency Intercept arrays and the locally developed Heron Mine & Obstacle Avoidance System (MOAS). Thus, in conjunction with LOTE acoustic improvements, they will remain as a full fighting force for the duration of their service life. They currently are armed with Harpoon anti-ship missiles and the upgraded Mark 48 Mod 7 Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System torpedo which was jointly developed by the US and Australian navies. This torpedo’s CBASS guidance control system has wider sonar bandwidth and can function at depths much greater than 365 meters. More resistant to enemy countermeasures, the CBASS torpedo variant can be optimized for targeting fast, deep-diving diving submarines or slow-moving submarines and surface ships in shallow waters.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x930/1cafbfa5_001a_4f39_b73a_686f1a464f5b_a0e09b43eeb3b37635106d6 de6aa17221acd40d9.jpeg
______________________________

If it is decided to purchase/build the Virginia class, the RAN would probably be looking at the Block VI configuration because it will have the acoustic enhancements that are currently being trialled aboard the USS South Dakota. This means the Australian SSN’s will have the latest available technology which is necessary as the RAN traditionally keeps vessels in service for their full fatigue life. They must be upgradable to ensure they are effective and survivable throughout their service life. The US plans to order the Block VI for production in the 2024-28 timeframe so this should fit with the Australian construction timetable. It’s even possible that the later vessels could be built to Block VII standard.

The submarines can be built without the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) at a saving of about US$500M per hull but the VP Tubes add a lot of flexibility & firepower as well as providing a launch capability for future UUV’s & hypersonic weapons. It would future proof evolving capability to include the VPM on at least half of the fleet - to not have VPM capability would limit how much the Virginia’s could be adapted to new technologies through to the end of their service life.

The 33 year life of the Virginia’s S9G reactor (& its much higher output) gives a significant advantage over the 25 year life of the Astute’s PWR2 which is reported to be out of production & has some safety concerns (Fukishima like, primary cooling system). The extra life that the reactor gives the Virginia class helps to offset its higher cost. The US has better facilities for disposal of the reactor core at the end of the SSN’s service life at the US Department of Energy’s Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State. The UK has had all of their older submarines stored at Devonport (Plymouth) & Rosyth for a long time and have finally started the process of removing radioactive components and disassembling them. There have been a number of reports about maintenance events on the Astute class which would indicate that design is not as operationally mature as the Virginia’s.

Another plus for selecting the Virginia would be the higher level of support (maintenance & re-arming) available at US submarine bases in the Pacific & Indian Oceans. If the Astute is selected, the RAN would have to arrange larger infrastructure & logistics.

There are still many hurdles, especially to get US Congressional approval, etc. I believe the leaders in the US would generally be in favour of a long term, trusted alliance partner having access to the latest technology as it assists them in doing the heavy lifting in maintaining peace throughout the Pacific.

PS. There are a lot of articles indicating that the US doesn’t have any spare submarines that the RAN can lease prior to building their own. The number of SSN’s in the US Navy fleet is currently way down on what they need so they can’t spare one. The only possibility is to take one of the Block II Los Angeles class boats that is in the process of decommissioning, paying for a very expensive refuel and overhaul, then try to keep it serviceable for another 10 years while the RAN sailors gain SSN experience. The USS Oklahoma City completed its final voyage in Bremerton a few days ago so it could be a candidate but, following the RAN’s experience with the Kanimbla class rust buckets, I can’t see them going down this path. Also, the USN currently has a backlog of submarines idle while waiting for their turn for refuelling & overhaul because the small number of shipyards able to do this work are unable to meet the demand - they wouldn’t be able to fit another vessel in their timetable for it to be prepared for RAN use. The hapless USS Boise returned from a patrol in 2015, and it hasn’t gone back on patrol since. Posting crew members to RN & USN submarine positions may be the only way for RAN submariners to learn how to operate SSN’s. The Royal Navy also doesn’t have any spare submarines available for lease.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1539x1077/4adf89bb_f563_428f_a9ae_17f1b82afd9e_5543dacce5655aa53e6e6a0 0fca6189654e4f7fe.jpeg

[golder]

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/key-enablers/9142-coras-partners-with-uk-firm-to-support-development-of-australian-nuclear-powered-submarine-capability (https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/key-enablers/9142-coras-partners-with-uk-firm-to-support-development-of-australian-nuclear-powered-submarine-capabilityAustralian)

Australian management consultancy Coras has inked an agreement with the UK’s Abbott Risk Consulting to support Australia’s acquisition and transition to a nuclear-powered submarine capability.

Following September’s AUKUS announcement, Australian and British firms have begun reaching across the aisle to work together under proposed technology-sharing arrangements between the countries.

[Going Boeing]

Maybe buying the Virginia class Block VI might be too ambitious!


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1186x577/f4f37fb1_00b3_4c15_b7ad_a245c93d1d00_c5b9634a6dbff0a52c24acc 23fa674e9fccb3b9c.jpeg

[rattman]

US bases on guam and in australia to be expanded, no actual details

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/29/politics/global-posture-review-china/index.html

[Going Boeing]

Yes, this is the ABC’s report - it would be good to have more details.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-30/cph-us-plans-upgrades-to-runways-in-australia/100661190

[rattman]

Yes, this is the ABC’s report - it would be good to have more details.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-30/cph-us-plans-upgrades-to-runways-in-australia/100661190


Its actually specified its internal use and restricted / top secret so we wont really know the details

In a press briefing Monday afternoon, Mara Karlin, who is performing the duties of the deputy under secretary of defense for policy, shared highlights of the review, which will not be released for the public, she said, citing classification for security reasons and to protect the confidentiality of consultations the country did with allies and partner countries.

[tartare]

Wonder if they'll bump up activity at Momote?
The amount of stuff still left up there from WW2 is a sight to behold.
ADDED: Interesting: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/chinese-built-airport-next-door-australia-us-funded-navy-port

[Asturias56]

Guess it'll be somewhere with reasonable access to deep water, not too far from the shipyard or a large industrial area for preference Perth, Brisbane, Newcastle areas look best - maybe Adelaide. Not Darwin or Melbourne

[Doors Off]

Guess it'll be somewhere with reasonable access to deep water, not too far from the shipyard or a large industrial area for preference Perth, Brisbane, Newcastle areas look best - maybe Adelaide. Not Darwin or Melbourne
Correct on Melbourne! The Democratik People’s Glorious Leader, His Emperor “Tali”Dan, of the Democratik Republik of the People’s Glorious CCCP State of Victoria - would not such Imperialist Activities.

Darwin though, you may be incorrect. GPR was upgraded to facilitate construction out at GP.

[Asturias56]

Possible but N subs need a lot of support - almost every base is near a BIG support facility (eg Norfolk, Glasgow, Murmansk) - Guam is the only one that is really different - but it's a monster military base.

[Buster Hyman]

Correct on Melbourne! The Democratik People’s Glorious Leader, His Emperor “Tali”Dan, of the Democratik Republik of the People’s Glorious CCCP State of Victoria - would not such Imperialist Activities.
:}:D All praise to the Great Leader!

Remember the rumours surrounding French Island being scouted by the USN? I imagine it was just that because Westernport & Port Philip Bays would be easily choked. Ahh, those were the days!

[John Eacott]

Correct on Melbourne! The Democratik People’s Glorious Leader, His Emperor “Tali”Dan, of the Democratik Republik of the People’s Glorious CCCP State of Victoria - would not such Imperialist Activities.

Darwin though, you may be incorrect. GPR was upgraded to facilitate construction out at GP.

Port Phillip Bay has been off-limits to nuclear (power or weapons) since either the 80s or 90s: maybe even earlier. The maritime unions won't deal with them and the State Gummints have not changed opinions except for Jeff Kennett who welcomed the USS Ohio in November 1992. In Victoria the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act dates from 1983 and remains on the Statutes today.

"It is the policy of the Royal Navy neither to confirm nor deny the carriage of nuclear weapons on board this ship" :p

[NumptyAussie]

The LA class have been sneaking into FBW under cover of darkness for years.

The maritime union only has a say on civilian wharfs/docks/ports.

[Gnadenburg]

Wonder if they'll bump up activity at Momote?
The amount of stuff still left up there from WW2 is a sight to behold.
ADDED: Interesting: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/chinese-built-airport-next-door-australia-us-funded-navy-port

Manus wouldn't last hours in a conflict with the CCP. Not without significant defensive investment including well-equipped infantry. A proper defensive commitment of a forward base such as Manus, would take up a considerable amount of ADF resources.

In WW2 Australia sacrificed many troops with token defence of forward bases throughout the Indonesian and New Guinea archipelagos. I think defence planners know these problems still present in modern conflict in the Pacific. Lombrum may get a token upgrade- anything more and the US Navy has obviously decided it figures more in their war plans than a peacetime forward refuelling base.

[tartare]

Intriguing though that the runway has been lengthened, apron extended and precision landing aids installed...

[fdr]

Water worked at Windscale too. (once they turned the fans off). Windscale also reduces the size of the milk lake in the UK pre-EU entry.... had to wait another 30 years to have Cesium special milk in EUR (Windscales Heath Robinson filters let Po get into the grasslands, at least it has a short " 'arf lyfe" [Po 210: 138.376 days].

The operational advantages of a nuke boat are valid, but so are the issues that come with them, including having to work out whether to use English, Nuclear, or 'Merican, Nukular pronunciation. "Ze embarrassment would be unbearable"... The program cost plonked onto advanced non-nukes would increase the number of hulls to find swabbies to fill the bunks for, which helps with unemployment. The neat thing with boats is, even if you just hide them under the pier no one knows what the risk to their own plans are. That seemed to work for the Foxtrots that seem to routinely sink at the piers in parts of Asia, although if the bow is still above the low tide mark then it kind of negates the strategy.

Once pinged, the old Alfa/Akula would return a pong doppler on the second ping, and yup they do go, but then localization is reduced in importance, a flat-out Akula pretty much announces its presence. The latest boats are better, particularly with nozzles, but they still are going to be driving at modest speeds. (the fairwater work is much better now than before, but still, pushing 5000cu mtrs of water out of the way ends up with energy dumping into the oggin, at a square of the veeze, so silence still derives from caution. At least the anechoic coating tiles add to.... flow turbulence... huh? er, oops. wheres my spack filler and DP190.

My main concern with AUS nukes is just the fleet sizing, if we had a fleet of 16 boats, it would be a fashion statement. having a handful of what can only be described as capital ships is an option, just not what I would vote for. Of course, I would also like some refurbished F16s and even buy-back of the F/A18A/B's they still have a place. Better yet, buy a 10 score and 50 A10's, re-wing, and invite former marine drivers to come and spend time dunnunda at RAAF Bundaberg, RAAF Hamilton Island, and the satellite airport RAAF Airlie Beach, and RAAF Broome. Replace the 30 x 173 PGU-14/B ammo core with cane toads. Nothing says welcome like a GAU-8/A.Add chicken wire mesh over the rear of the blenders to stop getting fruitbat strikes on takeoff when overtaken by the bats.

While we are at it, naval surface vessels, (known as "targets") of capital value don't make much sense anymore. While not a fan of the LCS as they turned out, it was not because the concept was bad, the complexity added by the committees trying to make an "all things to all users" vessel didn't help, nor did missing out the point that ships need to be maintainable. Having to cut the boat in two to replace a poorly designed bearing is an "own goal". A low signature would seem to be a nice thing to have if you wish to avoid being a flaming datum. Our arsenal dunnunda is a carry-over of the 60's, and the technology and lethality of munitions make a rethink worthwhile. One man's capital ship is another's juicy target.

OH, year, the other great thing about the A10 is that afterward, the barrels can be used as flag poles. really strong flag poles.

:}






For all those Australians whining about nuclear power not being safe - and nukular reactors sitting on docks in the middle of cities - there's an astonishing story buried in that submarine book.
HMS Valiant - in 1977 - under power when the Captain gets summoned back to the tunnel above the reactor compartment, and looks down through the thick window onto the reactor (a fascinating detail in itself).
He describes it as normally well lit and cathedral like - full of complex machinery - and radiation of course; completely sealed.
But in this case, the entire reactor compartment is full of seawater - due to a pipe leak - while the reactor is running!
They shut it down, drain the seawater - then restart it.
And it runs just fine - despite having being submerged in saltwater.
Testimony to the engineering.

[Gnadenburg]

RAAF asking about 24 C130J and 6 KC130 tankers.

War in the Pacific is going to require more airlift I guess. But why the tankers?



https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/more-hercules-for-raaf

[rattman]

I been saying they should buy the UK C-130's to suppliment the australian fleet, I was thinking specifically get some maffs for firefighting, but wonder if theres a option to get its a tanker for most of the year and if needed throw a maffs in it

Over all seems a bit weird, but will we need that many probe and drogue. Unless they are going retroactively refit the A's for probe you are down to Super hornets and growlers.

[golder]

I can only guess. We have also benched the 10 C-27j from the battle space. So that airlift and mission, has to be replaced somewhere too. Split between C-130j and CH-47? Perhaps they see a need for more probe refueling for specific Growler missions post 2030. Where the KC-30a isn't required for other assets. Or perhaps another probe platform will be coming? At this stage, the plan is to retire the FA-18f around 2030. That also may change?

[rattman]

Theres way more questions with no answers. Theres been chat for last 18 months the MRH-90 are on borrowed time, the SOF hate the taipan and have been pushing for little birds and pavehawks. Maybe a big buy of pavehawks to replace the a blackhawks that were supposed to be retired last month is on the cards and then these to refuel them.

Other thing I was thinking is maybe loyal wingman might be going probe and drogue and KC-130's might be more suitable for them in flight

[golder]

You are right, we are guessing. 2025-27 should give a clearer picture. The C-130 tankers for future helo with probe is a possibility too. We will be working with USMC so if they get the V-280. That could be nice for us to get, too :)
For UAV, I can't see the software being able to process a probe contact. It may be hard enough, to get it flying stable enough behind a tanker. For a boom operator to maintain contact.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/860x394/860x394_3d2e3059449b7dcfbbac1d05515a0f2fcccd57d3.jpg

[rattman]

For UAV, I can't see the software being able to process a probe contact. It may be hard enough, to get it flying stable enough behind a tanker. For a boom operator to maintain contact.



Been done successfully in testing already nearly 10 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZGEljK9X8

But this is all just spitballing atm, I was surprised we only had 12, so we would be almost quadrupling the fleet if we did

[Asturias56]

Back to topic........ in a post above Going Boeing shows a timeline with 8 SSN's - I can't see Australia managing to afford 8 - the UK will have taken 19 years to get 7 Astute's in service - the latest ones cost £ 1.5 Bn each

[rattman]

Back to topic........ in a post above Going Boeing shows a timeline with 8 SSN's - I can't see Australia managing to afford 8 - the UK will have taken 19 years to get 7 Astute's in service - the latest ones cost £ 1.5 Bn each

I had it explained to me by someone I trust, it originally came up when I ****ting on the french about the time the suffren took. He pointed out to me that both the UK and French long build times were sorta intentional. Both countries have been burned in previous generation by building them and 20 years later build the next one, meanwhile all the skills had atrophied. I dont think we are going to get 8, think its going to 6 nuclear and 6 conventional. But time will tell. Also note the cost of the astutes are actually going, astute actually came in massively overbudget and it was thanks to GDEB to save the program and made the boats cheaper

[Gnadenburg]

Back to topic........

Point of order. AUKUS isn’t just about submarines.

[Going Boeing]

I had it explained to me by someone I trust, it originally came up when I ****ting on the french about the time the suffren took. He pointed out to me that both the UK and French long build times were sorta intentional. Both countries have been burned in previous generation by building them and 20 years later build the next one, meanwhile all the skills had atrophied. I dont think we are going to get 8, think its going to 6 nuclear and 6 conventional. But time will tell. Also note the cost of the astutes are actually going, astute actually came in massively overbudget and it was thanks to GDEB to save the program and made the boats cheaper

Juggling the shipyard orders to ensure continuity of work for the skilled workers was what the current Australian government was trying to achieve with the schedule for the OPV’s, Attack class submarines & Hunter class frigates but it’s all unraveled with the cancellation of the Attack class & delays with the Hunter class design. The article (below) is a well thought out discussion suggesting a quick decision to build 3 more Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) to provide the necessary employment until the SSN’s & Hunters commence construction. Funding would be mainly using the money previously allocated in the next few years for building the Attack class.

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/delivering-stronger-navy-faster

I don’t think the RAN could manage two different submarine types (6 nuclear and 6 conventional) as suggested by Rattman. This government appears to be willing to spend the money because they see a real threat (another reason to build the additional AWD’s) so I think they will buy at least 8 SSN’s. If there is a change of government at the upcoming election, the funding may be more restricted.

The UK government appears to be restricting their defence spending with early retirement of some naval vessels, reduction of the E7 order from 5 down to 3 (not a viable fleet for operations), insufficient P8’s, early retirement of C130J’s, no boom refuelling on the A330 MRTT Voyager aircraft despite having a number of types which use the boom, fitted for (but not with) designs on the Type 26 & 31 frigates, etc.

The latest report on the Royal Navy says that they need more escort ships & attack submarines as well as existing ships require a lot more offensive firepower.
”The fleet will continue to suffer from well-documented problems with several key assets for at least the next few years:

Delays to crucial procurement programmes mean that old ships are becoming increasingly challenging to maintain and spend too long unavailable for operations.
Even for newer ships maintenance projects take too long. At one point in July 2021 only one of six Type 45 destroyers was not undergoing maintenance: three vessels were in refit; one was in planned maintenance; and one was “experiencing technical issues” (in layman’s English, it broke down).
The budget for operations and maintenance is tight and will likely lead to yet more ships sitting in port, failing to deter our increasingly emboldened adversaries.
“When ships do get to sea they act like porcupines – well-defended herbivores with limited offensive capabilities”. What offensive capabilities these ships do have will be reduced even further in three years’ time when the Government retires the Harpoon anti-ship missile without a planned replacement.
Three important vessels – RFA Argus, RFA Fort Victoria and HMS Scott – will also retire without replacements: the Navy will likely lose its current ability to provide medical care, replenish vessels at sea, and monitor the sea bed.
The fleet is increasingly reliant on allies for many capabilities, with a limited scope to act independently, and the Government needs to do more at the political level to ensure this support will be provided when needed.

Professor Till was among several witnesses who told the Defence Committee that Royal Navy vessels are often “decidedly under-armed and with worryingly limited magazines”when compared with peers and adversaries.”

[golder]

Been done successfully in testing already nearly 10 years ago.

I missed that :)
Point of order. AUKUS isn’t just about submarines.
AUKUS: A melding of forces and technology.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/01/bidens-indo-pacific-adviser-says-australia-wont-lose-sovereignty-under-aukus-deal
Australia won’t lose its sovereignty under the Aukus deal, according to Joe Biden’s top Indo-Pacific adviser, who has sought to clarify his prediction of a “melding” of Australian, US and UK military forces.

[Asturias56]

"I think they will buy at least 8 SSN’s" -

that's going to be a BIG bill............. and a sitting target for the Australian opposition who will tell people the money would be better spent on Health Care- after all, that's what the Tory Govt. in the UK seems ot think.

[Gnadenburg]

"I think they will buy at least 8 SSN’s" -

that's going to be a BIG bill............. and a sitting target for the Australian opposition who will tell people the money would be better spent on Health Care- after all, that's what the Tory Govt. in the UK seems ot think.

AUKUS with its 8 SSN buy has bi-partisan support going right back to Sept.

Labor has three conditions for the support of nuclear-powered submarines, which we have sought assurance on. Firstly, that there be no requirement of a domestic civil nuclear industry. Secondly, that there be no acquisition of nuclear weapons. And, thirdly, that this agreement would be compatible with the non-proliferation treaty.

From the Opposition Leader

[Asturias56]

"AUKUS with its 8 SSN buy has bi-partisan support going right back to Sept."


They're politicians - they'll use whatever stick they can find to beat the other side - wait & see..................

[Derfred]

Back to topic........ in a post above Going Boeing shows a timeline with 8 SSN's - I can't see Australia managing to afford 8 - the UK will have taken 19 years to get 7 Astute's in service - the latest ones cost £ 1.5 Bn each

That’s a bargain based on Emmanuel’s quote of AU$90B for 12 SSK’s.