Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

AUKUS

Old 20th Sep 2021, 23:51
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 376
Received 28 Likes on 17 Posts
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.
golder is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 02:52
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 925
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!
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 03:05
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Down Under somewhere not all that far from YPAD
Age: 79
Posts: 567
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
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 ...
FullOppositeRudder is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 03:06
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 91 Likes on 59 Posts
Originally Posted by BFSGrad
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.
Thanks for that info it seems sorta hard to find out that sort of stuff. I could find an USN interview / whats your job involved for a mechanical rate and they commented that they did 2 years training before thier first deployment
rattman is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 03:08
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 376
Received 28 Likes on 17 Posts
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.
golder is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 03:24
  #226 (permalink)  
Gne
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: With the Wizard
Posts: 176
Received 43 Likes on 21 Posts
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 is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 04:54
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,210
Received 169 Likes on 75 Posts
So I read...UK is approved, there are some interal yank hurdles to jump to be able to supply power plant direct.
It should also mean that there won't be any power of veto as to where it can be/cannot be used like the French did with the Mirages during Vietnam.

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.
If you need to ask that question then you don't know what is motivating the CCP. Clearly all you want to do is engage in anti-America rants so fill your boots but that sort of rhetoric is cliché and boring.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 08:50
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,167
Received 318 Likes on 184 Posts
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
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 09:07
  #229 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 16,908
Received 1,318 Likes on 600 Posts
The UK may then be the nuke engine.
Production of the PWR2 ceased with the construction of the last 2 for the Last current Astute class.

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/

ORAC is online now  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 14:25
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So what exactly has Australia to gain from AUKUS? I still fail to see there benefits.
SaulGoodman is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 14:59
  #231 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 16,908
Received 1,318 Likes on 600 Posts
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
ORAC is online now  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 18:14
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,167
Received 318 Likes on 184 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
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 18:27
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 733
Received 441 Likes on 154 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
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
Has anyone had the bad taste to ask the people who live in EU states if they really want control of their own military handed over to Brussels? And where does this leave the neutral countries (Austria, Ireland, Finland, Malta and Sweden)? Would they be compelled to participate as a condition of EU membership?
Video Mixdown is online now  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 18:40
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Dirty South
Posts: 448
Received 21 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by ehwatezedoing
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.
Meh. You say Falklands, I say Etendard carrying Excocet. Or that brilliant helicopter named Tiger. Or the vapourware French Submarine. At least we know this one will work as advertised.

France is a lovely country. But …. 🏳
JPJP is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 18:52
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 282
Received 30 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
SSN's are hard to detect and can carry a serious conventional punch.
SSKs are a shed load harder to detect (until they snort) and can carry the same punch.
ExAscoteer2 is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 19:01
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,186
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2
SSKs are a shed load harder to detect (until they snort) and can carry the same punch.
But the SSN has no limiting lines of submerged approach.

YS
Yellow Sun is online now  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 19:02
  #237 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Schloss Neuschwanstein
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 36 Likes on 13 Posts
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.
Count of Monte Bisto is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 19:28
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,315
Received 89 Likes on 44 Posts
Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2
SSKs are a shed load harder to detect (until they snort) and can carry the same punch.
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.
henra is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 20:08
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
etudiant is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2021, 20:23
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
"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
I get that the hardware might be a little better (which they could have ordered instead anyway) but I still fail to see what the country of Australia has to gain. Don’t get me wrong, I am everything BUT a China fan but in my eyes AUKUS has changed Australia in an American vassal state with the risk of seriously pissing of their biggest trade partner.

keep your friends close but your enemies closer!
SaulGoodman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.