AUKUS
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAN will get submarines minimum 7 years later than expected :
- 5 years lost - working with the French.
- 2 years now to design some arrangement with US (nothing concrete so far)
and it was supposed to be urgent...
Considering that the production line of US SSNs is fully booked for years to come, what can be expected ?
Probably basing at Darwin a couple of USN submarines, and accomodating on board some Australian crew - dealing witht he nuclear reactor remaining under US control (and the Ossies have no technicians for that, anyway) - what an exciting prospect for the RAN (so they will be "integrated")... but after all, if it does suit them, why bother ?
I had some first-hand knowledge of all that - one of my Academy classmates became Chief Propulsion Engineer of the nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" (finishing later as a 5-stars admiral) There is no way you can build from scratch such a specialised workforce, in a country deprived of Engineering Universites dealing with nuclear matters. Absolutely no way.
It's a pity, considering the pleasant cooperation we did enjoy with RAN on HMAS Success (Durance-class of replenishment ships) - those subs would have been a nice and big adventure.
- 5 years lost - working with the French.
- 2 years now to design some arrangement with US (nothing concrete so far)
and it was supposed to be urgent...
Considering that the production line of US SSNs is fully booked for years to come, what can be expected ?
Probably basing at Darwin a couple of USN submarines, and accomodating on board some Australian crew - dealing witht he nuclear reactor remaining under US control (and the Ossies have no technicians for that, anyway) - what an exciting prospect for the RAN (so they will be "integrated")... but after all, if it does suit them, why bother ?
I had some first-hand knowledge of all that - one of my Academy classmates became Chief Propulsion Engineer of the nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" (finishing later as a 5-stars admiral) There is no way you can build from scratch such a specialised workforce, in a country deprived of Engineering Universites dealing with nuclear matters. Absolutely no way.
It's a pity, considering the pleasant cooperation we did enjoy with RAN on HMAS Success (Durance-class of replenishment ships) - those subs would have been a nice and big adventure.
Last edited by recceguy; 19th Sep 2021 at 14:03.
With the timescales being discussed I would suggest SSNX would be the more likely candidate - and it seems better fitted to Australian needs.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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.
(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.)
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)
And I suppose the French are trustworthy are they? The French look after their own interests in a way I wish we did sometimes!
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 925
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 925
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Last edited by rjtjrt; 20th Sep 2021 at 01:24.
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.
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.
Drain Bamaged
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.
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Well, youre in a very small cheer squad on that one.
Certainly no basis for Australian foreign policy.
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overse...ca_claims).svg
