AUKUS

[L1649A]

If Morrison loses the next election in Australia, presumably there is nothing to stop a new administration cancelling AUKUS ?

[West Coast]

With the timescales being discussed I would suggest SSNX would be the more likely candidate - and it seems better fitted to Australian needs.

Hopefully the Chinese will be so kind as to wait before they kick off the festivities.

[Asturias56]

They've only just started work on designing the SSNX - the likelihood they'll be delivering them in the early 2030's looks very optimistic - - more likely late '30s at the earliest

[medod]

I just can't stop coming back to the fact that even if the RAN takes every shortcut available to them, buying boats off-the-shelf from the US or UK and having Australian crews trained abroad, maybe even home-basing the boats in the US or UK, it's going to be decades before they could possibly operate a nuclear submarine competently.
​​​​​​
If they want to build the boats in-country, and possibly even train their crews in Australia... I fully foresee them failing, no doubt after decades of trying having spent many tens of billions. Some future government will recognise the folly of a country of just 25 million trying to afford and acquire nuclear boats, and chop the project.

(For clarity: it's really, really hard to safely operate a nuclear submarine safely. Get it wrong and the results are catastrophic. To not get it wrong requires knowledge and experience I just can't see Australia being able to acquire and maintain with any level of independence.)

I imagine the French contact was to build boats capable of littoral surveillance, just without nuclear propulsion. I guess Australia thinks it can spend a bit more and get nuclear boats. Can't fault their ambition. They're going to get a hard reality check at some point.

[Video Mixdown]

Originally Posted by medod

I just can't stop coming back to the fact that even if the RAN takes every shortcut available to them, buying boats off-the-shelf from the US or UK and having Australian crews trained abroad, maybe even home-basing the boats in the US or UK, it's going to be decades before they could possibly operate a nuclear submarine competently.
​​​​​​
If they want to build the boats in-country, and possibly even train their crews in Australia... I fully foresee them failing, no doubt after decades of trying having spent many tens of billions. Some future government will recognise the folly of a country of just 25 million trying to afford and acquire nuclear boats, and chop the project.

(For clarity: it's really, really hard to safely operate a nuclear submarine safely. Get it wrong and the results are catastrophic. To not get it wrong requires knowledge and experience I just can't see Australia being able to acquire and maintain with any level of independence.)

I imagine the French contact was to build boats capable of littoral surveillance, just without nuclear propulsion. I guess Australia thinks it can spend a bit more and get nuclear boats. Can't fault their ambition. They're going to get a hard reality check at some point.

You talk as if they’re beginners. RAN is a very professional and experienced service who will have full access to long-established RN/USN training programmes. I’d be surprised if they have not had officers serving aboard US/UK boats for many years. Such cross-postings are common throughout UK/US/AUS military, where integration is seamless.

[recceguy]

Originally Posted by medod

I imagine the French contact was to build boats capable of littoral surveillance, just without nuclear propulsion. .

No. They were truly blue ocean ships. Once again, the German ones were for coastal waters operations, so their failure to be awarded the deal six years ago.

Thanks medod anyway for your informative post. Regarding the Aussies, you change your mind, so you lose time. And for them, it's not only being 25 millions (Israêl, South Africa were doing much more with less) but just a story of being a little bit.... inadequate regarding education, especially scientific. And everybody knows that. They play a decent rugby anyway. And they will have to deal with their not-so -reliable woke partner with a veiled PM anyway (that's why NZ was not to be included in the deal, on US request)

[rattman]

Originally Posted by Video Mixdown

You talk as if they’re beginners. RAN is a very professional and experienced service who will have full access to long-established RN/USN training programmes. I’d be surprised if they have not had officers serving aboard US/UK boats for many years. Such cross-postings are common throughout UK/US/AUS military, where integration is seamless.

Yep all sub commanders go through perisher in the UK or netherland also go through the equivient american course. Other assorted officers dont always but some go through RN/USN various command/officer schools

[rattman]

Originally Posted by medod

(For clarity: it's really, really hard to safely operate a nuclear submarine safely. Get it wrong and the results are catastrophic. To not get it wrong requires knowledge and experience I just can't see Australia being able to acquire and maintain with any level of independence.)

Theres probably some here who have done it but nuclear school in the US to actually only a 6 month course added onto your electral rating from what I can find. Positions like supervisors all seem to have a degree level nuclear engineering as well. Machinist mates nuclear is a 2 your course. Also the nuclear school is tough, fail one exam you are out, some exams have 100% pass rate.

Australian nuclear qualified wont happen overnight, but it will happen and meanwhile assuming that a US/UK will be able supply personel to fill these positions initially. Same way that over 50% of our current sub commanders are from different navies (1 from RN, 1 for south africa and 1 from canada)

[mopardave]

Originally Posted by gcal

Anyone fool enough to trust the UK government, at least the present one, is likely to be be disappointed.
Nothing other than a lie has come out of them in the last five years at least.
It's all smoke and mirrors and wobbly promises.

And I suppose the French are trustworthy are they? The French look after their own interests in a way I wish we did sometimes!

[Gnadenburg]

Originally Posted by mopardave

And I suppose the French are trustworthy are they? The French look after their own interests in a way I wish we did sometimes!

That's how silly this makes the Government of the time look. The French were not trustworthy in such a critical defence project. They have the history to prove it and the Americans were concerned about technological transfers. Who knows what will suit the French in the Pacific? Perhaps the CCP's interests or duplicity may suit the French economy at the time?

Let's see what AUKUS can deliver in terms of an interim and future submarine capability. In the meantime, inside of a decade and perhaps considerably less, it is Australia's air force that can be expanded and fleshed out for regional conflict. Additional French made tankers would be a good start.

[Ndegi]

I have a long memory of French Terrorists using French submarines as part of their plans to bomb the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour. From the attitudes of our friend above, the French attitude has not changed.

[rjtjrt]

Originally Posted by recceguy

Chinese version of Super-Frelon helicopter - they seem to enjoy it


and here is the well-known Dauphin

It is very refreshing to see recceguy slut shaming his own country.
It appears I have more respect for France than he does.

[rjtjrt]

Originally Posted by rattman

Have you actually bothered to read anything or watch the press conference ? Part of the deal the subs will be built in australia, specifically at osborne ship yards in adelaide. While we dont know the specifics as they have allocated 12-18 months to determine the design / winners. It believed that the a nuclear power plant will be built which ever countries sub is selected. Will be shipped to australia as a sealed black box where it will be installed onto the sub. The majority of the sub will be built in adelaide with US/UK technical support. I assume the overal program will be managed by electric boat the same way they did with the astute program

Rat (I hope I can call you by your diminutive).
Of course you can believe that the subs will all be built in Adelaide. A press release form the Liberal or Labor government of the day undertaking to do something in 10+ years time is something you can take to the bank.
Lease of 1 or 2 older near decommission subs to get training started and some capability, and increase sub numbers to 8, is the most likely early move. Then off the shelf overseas build of 2 new boats, assuming we can get US or UK to free up build space, will most likely happen. Adelaide will get more non sub orders to appease them. By then Osborne will have not built a sub for 30+ years.
The previous imperative to have a sovereign sub build and maint capability was only there when we had to buy conventional subs i.e. Continental European designs. Now we are can source subs from more reliable countries, home build is desirable but not essential, and impractical in terms of timeframe, recent experience and cost. UK and US have a sense of kinship with Australia, Continental Europe do not and that is the difference.
Adelaide will loose sub build, as it did car manufacture.
Still, none of us really know. All here is just speculative opinion from people who most likely have no real idea.

[rattman]

Originally Posted by rjtjrt

Rat (I hope I can call you by your diminutive).
Of course you can believe that the subs will all be built in Adelaide. A press release form the Liberal or Labor government of the day undertaking to do something in 10+ years time is something you can take to the bank.
Lease of 1 or 2 older near decommission subs to get training started and some capability, and increase sub numbers to 8, is the most likely early move. Then off the shelf overseas build of 2 new boats, assuming we can get US or UK to free up build space, will most likely happen. Adelaide will get more non sub orders to appease them. By then Osborne will have not built a sub for 30+ years.
The previous imperative to have a sovereign sub build and maint capability was only there when we had to buy conventional subs i.e. Continental European designs. Now we are can source subs from more reliable, trustworthy countries home build is desirable but not essential, and impractical in terms of timeframe, recent experience and cost.
Adelaide will loose sub build, as it did car manufacture.
Still, none of us really know. All here is just speculative opinion from people who most likely have no real idea.

Where else can they be built ? The US has no spare capacity, niether does the UK. We maybe close friends but the US or the UK are not going to delay the production of their own subs to fit ours. I have said it before these will be manufactured in australia, they will be supervised / managed by probably general dynamics electric boat in the same way they did for the astutes. Once its complete there would be somewhere to service the subs a lot closer to china, osborne shipyards are building the new hunter frigates. I still think they will be majority built there with certain sections built overseas and shipped over. If for only reason being is that there is no where else to build them, there appears to be zero capacity worldwide

[RickNRoll]

These are all questions to be answered and no one, including Morrison, knows those answers. All we have now are aspirations and announcements and a cancelled contract.

[ehwatezedoing]

Originally Posted by Grumpy retiree

recceguy , it would be quite amusing if you are actually on Clipperton Island.
Because that about sums up the relevance of France to the Pacific.
Why does France try to hang on to its colonial past ?
Relations with France or the US ?
Difficult choice. Not.

Huh!?

Nothing to do with hanging to a colonial past, those territories figured out it was better staying French than trying the "independence" route. A lot of you French bashers are conveniently forgetting that France rank #1 in maritime borders, contiguous zones and territorial waters.

Want it or not, they do have a say in the Pacific region.

[Grumpy retiree]

Originally Posted by ehwatezedoing

Huh!?

Nothing to do with hanging to a colonial past, those territories figured out it was better staying French than trying the "independence" route. A lot of you French bashers are conveniently forgetting that France rank #1 in maritime borders, contiguous zones and territorial waters.

Want it or not, they do have a say in the Pacific region.

So, French possessions in the Pacific are not an anomaly?
Well, youre in a very small cheer squad on that one.
Certainly no basis for Australian foreign policy.

[West Coast]

French possessions are not insignificant in the Pacific. From personal experience, the fishing near Clipperton island is fantastic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overse...ca_claims).svg

[ORAC]

Twitter

[Bengo]

There is more to this than finding someone/somewhere to build the boats and training some nuclear submariners. Routes for these things exist and there is quite possibly room in the US or UK pipelines for enough Aussie trainees.
What does not exist is an Australian nuclear Regulatory Environment, because Australia has no civil nuclear base.

It will take a good time to sort out the legislation, train the (civilian?) Staff to replicate the role of the UKAEA or its US equivalent and for it to write some rules. The new body will have zero experience at start up and will need to borrow that from others.

There are a hell of a lot of non-trivial tasks to be done. Who will be the Rickover of dunnunder?

N