AUKUS
There is no time for a new type, this time. We will take off the shelf, as much as possible. Probably Astute and the US fire system. Although the Virginia already has the fire system installed, so it would be easier. The UK may then be the nuke engine. I would say the decision has been made, it's a matter of when it will be released.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If UK with Astute can integrate US fire control system that allows US torpedo to be used, in a cost effective and timely manner, then I guess that would probably address most of RAN desired minimum specs. However an off the shelf Astute would be better than a late, and half working bespoke Astute.
I say guess as that is basically what all of us here are doing!
I say guess as that is basically what all of us here are doing!
An enlightening discussion here: https://www.news.com.au/national/fre...bd3b4cc20e8712
Factually, every flamin' kangaroo in the country could see the writing on the wall as the exploration of the French option slowly unraveled. The only surprise is that it took this long to state the obvious ...
Factually, every flamin' kangaroo in the country could see the writing on the wall as the exploration of the French option slowly unraveled. The only surprise is that it took this long to state the obvious ...
The basic path for U.S. nuclear trained enlisted personnel is boot camp, 6 months A school, 6 months nuclear power school, 6 months prototype, and 3 months sub school (not required for surface assignment). For officers, the same minus the A school and boot camp. Enlisted, no degree required. Officer, degree required but it doesn't have to be STEM. Officers have to pass the Naval Reactors interview (usually while midshipmen). Regarding exams in the nuclear pipeline, there is no required 100% pass rate for any exam. Enlisted or officer can also fail one or more exams in nuclear training but those who do are put on rigorous academic probation and quickly shown the door if remediation fails.
It's also the partnered CBASS Torp, that has Aussie tech. Easiest is the virgin, but has more crew, with the UK engine. So I read...UK is approved, there are some interal yank hurdles to jump to be able to supply power plant direct.
ADF PURCHASING POLICY
It is to be hoped that for this acquisition the ADF does not follow the long established policy, typified by the recent purchase of HB pencils where the sharp ends were cut off and the blunt ends sharpened to suit those unique Australian conditions.
Gne
Gne
So I read...UK is approved, there are some interal yank hurdles to jump to be able to supply power plant direct.
The CCP want to defeat the West and rub their noses in what the CCP call the Century of Humiliation
You may have the timeline a little askew regarding exactly which century.
You may have the timeline a little askew regarding exactly which century.
The answer has to be off the shelf - and even second hand. The strain of staffing and operating a new class of submarine will stretch Australia a long way (see the Sir Humphrey article referenced above)- adding in building and (even worse) a new or modified design would be insane.
The Uk has enough problems getting Astutes out of the door from a single yard in time to get the new SSBN's on track (and thats after 60 years of building SSN's) - any new production has to be in the USA - give a decent order the yards there are in a better state to up production over 3-5 years - which is how long it will take to train the crew (s)
Building them in Adelaide - a very long way away
The Uk has enough problems getting Astutes out of the door from a single yard in time to get the new SSBN's on track (and thats after 60 years of building SSN's) - any new production has to be in the USA - give a decent order the yards there are in a better state to up production over 3-5 years - which is how long it will take to train the crew (s)
Building them in Adelaide - a very long way away
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The UK may then be the nuke engine.
The Dreadnaught class under construction uses the PWR3 which is reportedly based on a S9G used in the Virginia class.
The latest US reactor is the S1B for the new Columbia class SSBN, and the SSNX, (which have a 42ft beam as opposed to the 38ft if the Virginia class*)
(* The Astute has a 42ft beam, a feature which was driven by having to use the PWR2 reactor designed for the Trident Vanguard class. That seems to have proved serendipitous with better stealth than the Virginia, a route the USN now seem to be following.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_PWR
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/02/bwx...columbia-class
If a design based on the Astute was chosen it would therefore need either the production of the PWR2 to be restarted in future years, or a redesign to accommodate one of the above.
All hedging around current non-proliferation treaties.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/li...ubmarine-deal/
https://thebulletin.org/2021/09/the-...ration-regime/
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
More on the reaction of French and implications for NATO.
It would seem they are getting the EU on their side as far as looking at building up the EU as a military force and “third pillar”.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-c...-allies-aukus/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...with-australia
It would seem they are getting the EU on their side as far as looking at building up the EU as a military force and “third pillar”.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-c...-allies-aukus/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...with-australia
"So what exactly has Australia to gain from AUKUS? I still fail to see there benefits."
SSN's can operate longer and safer further N than the diesel boats - unless you look at a map its hard to believe but China is actually closer to Finland than to Australia
SSN's are hard to detect and can carry a serious conventional punch - they last a long time and, overall, are very flexible. It was SSN's that kept he Argentinean navy in port thru the Falklands War
SSN's can operate longer and safer further N than the diesel boats - unless you look at a map its hard to believe but China is actually closer to Finland than to Australia
SSN's are hard to detect and can carry a serious conventional punch - they last a long time and, overall, are very flexible. It was SSN's that kept he Argentinean navy in port thru the Falklands War
More on the reaction of French and implications for NATO.
It would seem they are getting the EU on their side as far as looking at building up the EU as a military force and “third pillar”.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-c...-allies-aukus/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...with-australia
It would seem they are getting the EU on their side as far as looking at building up the EU as a military force and “third pillar”.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-c...-allies-aukus/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...with-australia
No more an anomaly than the Falklands, Gibraltar, Cayman, Montserrat, Pitcairn, etc...
Your French Bashing is a bit tiring. Not Grumpy for nothing
I'd like to remind you that it is Australia who bailed out of a signed contract! Not the other way round. Blame your own government to have it signed at first if it was "such a bad deal"
Anyway like West Coast wrote, it will be blown over soon enough.
Your French Bashing is a bit tiring. Not Grumpy for nothing
I'd like to remind you that it is Australia who bailed out of a signed contract! Not the other way round. Blame your own government to have it signed at first if it was "such a bad deal"Anyway like West Coast wrote, it will be blown over soon enough.
France is a lovely country. But …. 🏳
Moderator
I am a Brit and unashamedly supportive of my country - I could therefore be considered biased in this debate. However, the French are some of the most aggressive and unscrupulous arms and technology salesmen on the planet. The will sell any weapons to absolute anyone at all, without any embarrassment whatsoever, as long as they have the money. They sold Exocet missiles to the Argentinians that took out British ships. We, incidentally, previously owned the Belgrano and their Aircraft Carrier, so we are not blameless either. Those with long memories may recall the Israelis carrying out 'The Raid on the Sun' (Operation Opera, also sometimes known as Operation Babylon) on 7 June 1981 when their very nice new F-16s took out the Iraqi's nearly-finished Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the reactor was supplied by none other than the French. They never gave a second's thought to the wider ramification of a madman like Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons - it is all about having money in the bank after all.
Move now to the present day where the French have seriously got the hump because their not-so-posh submarines have been usurped by better offerings fro the Brits and Americans. Again, followers of history will know that it was the Brits who were the last to sink a ship with a submarine when HMS Conqueror (UK-built nuclear submarine with conventional torpedos) sunk the Belgrano in the Falklands War. There are a lot of things the Brits could do better at - when it comes to submarines, we do seem to be doing quite well. Does anyone seriously think for a moment the French would have hesitated to have stuffed the Brits or Yanks if the tables had been turned. These are the same French who thought nothing of blowing up the Rainbow Warrior on 10 June 1985 in Auckland Harbour - New Zealand being a major ally of the French and the Australians incidentally. Therefore, at a technical level, the purchase of British and American submarines, instead of French one, makes total sense. Again, followers of history may be interested to know that of the 59 submarines used by the French navy in WW2, 3/4 of them were sunk - not exactly inspiring stuff.
So, to the question of whether the Chinese care about 8 Australian submarines. Of course, they are not running in fear of their navy being sunk by the Australians, but that is not how these things work. The reason Argentina felt empowered to invade the Falklands in 1982 is that the UK announced it was moving one tiny little Ice Breaker (HMS Endurance) away from the South Atlantic. In diplomatic terms, this was a 'please invade now' call and was interpreted as such. The purchase of 8 submarines that actually work tells the Chinese that Australia in extremely unhappy about their advances into the ocean beyond their shores and have only so much tolerance of such behaviour - that is diplomacy in action. So, well done to the Australians who decided not to be defrauded by the French. The French will go back to selling arms to anyone they can find - I am sure that if that delightful new government in Afghanistan show signs of starting a blue water navy the French have some spare submarines available at bargain prices.
Move now to the present day where the French have seriously got the hump because their not-so-posh submarines have been usurped by better offerings fro the Brits and Americans. Again, followers of history will know that it was the Brits who were the last to sink a ship with a submarine when HMS Conqueror (UK-built nuclear submarine with conventional torpedos) sunk the Belgrano in the Falklands War. There are a lot of things the Brits could do better at - when it comes to submarines, we do seem to be doing quite well. Does anyone seriously think for a moment the French would have hesitated to have stuffed the Brits or Yanks if the tables had been turned. These are the same French who thought nothing of blowing up the Rainbow Warrior on 10 June 1985 in Auckland Harbour - New Zealand being a major ally of the French and the Australians incidentally. Therefore, at a technical level, the purchase of British and American submarines, instead of French one, makes total sense. Again, followers of history may be interested to know that of the 59 submarines used by the French navy in WW2, 3/4 of them were sunk - not exactly inspiring stuff.
So, to the question of whether the Chinese care about 8 Australian submarines. Of course, they are not running in fear of their navy being sunk by the Australians, but that is not how these things work. The reason Argentina felt empowered to invade the Falklands in 1982 is that the UK announced it was moving one tiny little Ice Breaker (HMS Endurance) away from the South Atlantic. In diplomatic terms, this was a 'please invade now' call and was interpreted as such. The purchase of 8 submarines that actually work tells the Chinese that Australia in extremely unhappy about their advances into the ocean beyond their shores and have only so much tolerance of such behaviour - that is diplomacy in action. So, well done to the Australians who decided not to be defrauded by the French. The French will go back to selling arms to anyone they can find - I am sure that if that delightful new government in Afghanistan show signs of starting a blue water navy the French have some spare submarines available at bargain prices.
SSN's can travel long distances fully submerged at high speeds and are thereby a tremendous danger to an opposing Overwater Fleet. They can catch up to any conventionally powered overwater Unit over longer distances. In confined waters a diesel or especially a fuel cell unit will be more stealthy but for PLAN trying to put pressure on a country thousands of miles away from their homeland a fleet of 8 SSN armed with torpedos and harpoon is a huge threat.
Surely the message here is not in the details of the contract or the specific tech transfers, rather it is that the US is actively disseminating nuclear technology in Australia/Asia.
China has done zip to halt the North Korean nuclear effort, so the US will help its friends to arm up correspondingly. South Korea, India, Japan and Taiwan are on the agenda, imho in that order.
China will be deterred militarily, that is relatively easy. The commercial dependencies will be a lot more difficult to deal with.
China has done zip to halt the North Korean nuclear effort, so the US will help its friends to arm up correspondingly. South Korea, India, Japan and Taiwan are on the agenda, imho in that order.
China will be deterred militarily, that is relatively easy. The commercial dependencies will be a lot more difficult to deal with.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So what exactly has Australia to gain from AUKUS? I still fail to see there benefits."
SSN's can operate longer and safer further N than the diesel boats - unless you look at a map its hard to believe but China is actually closer to Finland than to Australia
SSN's are hard to detect and can carry a serious conventional punch - they last a long time and, overall, are very flexible. It was SSN's that kept he Argentinean navy in port thru the Falklands War
SSN's can operate longer and safer further N than the diesel boats - unless you look at a map its hard to believe but China is actually closer to Finland than to Australia
SSN's are hard to detect and can carry a serious conventional punch - they last a long time and, overall, are very flexible. It was SSN's that kept he Argentinean navy in port thru the Falklands War
keep your friends close but your enemies closer!