AUKUS

[ExAscoteer2]

Originally Posted by Yellow Sun

But the SSN has no limiting lines of submerged approach.

YS

And is damned all use in littoral waters.

[ExAscoteer2]

Originally Posted by henra

SSN's can travel long distances fully submerged at high speeds and are thereby a tremendous danger to an opposing Overwater Fleet.

An SSN at speed is easy to track passively.

[TWT]

Count of Monte Bisto

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.

A minor point but the ROKS vessel 'Cheonan' was sunk in 2010 by a North Korean submarine.

[Video Mixdown]

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2

An SSN at speed is easy to track passively.

I think it's just possible that combat tactics forms part of the Commanders course.

[ExAscoteer2]

I think it's just possible I have something over 1000 hrs Nimrod. Your move.

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2

SSKs are a shed load harder to detect (until they snort) and can carry the same punch.

And their time in theatre is what compared to a SSN?

[ExAscoteer2]

You tell me. You are obviously an expert.

[Video Mixdown]

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2

I think it's just possible I have something over 1000 hrs Nimrod. Your move.

My genuine respect - poorly worded. I just meant that presumably they wouldn't deliberately make it easy for you. I'm out.

[ExAscoteer2]

The point is, even when they are quiet, SSNs make noise that can be tracked.

[pants on fire...]

Not to suggest in any way that there is any implication of impropriety in this Australian deal, but consider the larger picture and history. It is easy to understand the outrage over this submarine deal that is now underwater, however, it is always worth considering the history of the righteous state-owned builder and some of their past deals? These implicate individuals at the highest levels of Government on both sides of the deal and have had major political and criminal implications that run for decades in some cases. The sums of money involved are staggering and there is no way they are paid without visibility at the highest levels of business and government.

https://corruption-tracker.org/case/...arine-contract
https://corruption-tracker.org/case/...bmarine-affair
https://corruption-tracker.org/case/laffaire-karachi
https://corruption-tracker.org/case/...frigate-affair

Corruption from other suppliers and countries remains a major issue in the arms business where huge amounts of money are involved, and the contemporary global compliance efforts must be wholeheartedly applauded.

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2

The point is, even when they are quiet, SSNs make noise that can be tracked.

So the perfect weapons system hasn’t been developed yet, got it.

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2

You tell me. You are obviously an expert.

Somehow you missed the link early in this thread that provides estimates on endurance vs range.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ubmarine-force

[rjtjrt]

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2

And is damned all use in littoral waters.

I know you are an expert, but is the Sea of Okhotsz a littoral zone/water and didn't US operate a nuclear sub there quite successfully?

[ExAscoteer2]

Oh FFS!

My point I merely pointed out that SSNs are easier to track than are SSKs, as you would know if you had ever had to do so. Get over yourselves.

[Grumpy retiree]

Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2

Oh FFS!

My point I merely pointed out that SSNs are easier to track than are SSKs, as you would know if you had ever had to do so. Get over yourselves.

I have no personal experience of tracking subs but have talked to PC3 Orion Pilots who have and you are undoubtedly correct.
However 2 big factors in favour of nuclear subs. Range and access to the whole suite of sensor technology etc.
Range has always been a big issue for the RAN and is what probably what ruled out the German option.
Five years ago the nuclear option was not on the table. As soon as it was it was a nobrainer.

[rattman]

Didn't turball mention in memoirs that he picked the french because there was an option to change later deliveries back to nuclear subs

[megan]

Anyone like to comment. Are we in the poo, the Fat Man is also complaining about the neuclearisation.

You Tube

[rattman]

Originally Posted by megan

Anyone like to comment. Are we in the poo, the Fat Man is also complaining about the neuclearisation.

No major nuclear power is going to deploy nuclear weapons, the first country to launch is the second country to die

[Gnadenburg]

Originally Posted by megan

Anyone like to comment. Are we in the poo, the Fat Man is also complaining about the neuclearisation.

Firstly, Australia via its alliance with the USA and critical joint facilities, was presumably a Cold War nuclear target. Now, with or without nuclear powered submarines, it is a target of the CCP. Australia has been advised as much with threats from CCP run media.

Victor Gao had no logic despite claiming so. He was aggressive and threatening and if behaviour like this continues, sadly we will have to expect nuclear proliferation in Asia. China doe not want well armed regional nations no does it want regional military pacts.

[tartare]

Australia has been a target for nuclear strikes ever since it set up Pine Gap.
That facility is the NSA's eyes and ears on the whole of Asia - uplinking and downlinking to and from US SIGINT and IMINT birds, and Australia's own SIGINT bird that is part of the constellation.
Pine Gap will have played a critical role in the withdrawal from Afghanistan - anyone else wonder why a USAF C-17 made a trip from Guam down here at the height of those festivities?
And should war break out in the South China sea and nukes start being lobbed around - betcha it'll be one of the first places that disappears in a fireball.
Gao's assertion Australia is not already targeted is bull!!!!.
Interestingly, if a senior commentator with very good guangxi at highest levels in the CCP is prepared to speak and behave in such a way in public, imagine what is being said in private?
Even filtering out the usual Chinese propensity for Peking Opera rage and bluster - in my view the tenor of his comments absolutely underline the necessity for Australia to acquire these submarines, and further weapons.

[Grumpy retiree]

Originally Posted by usedtobeATC

If America and Britain can supply nuclear weapons to Australia, then why can't Russia supply the same to Cuba or Venezuela?

You do understand the difference between weapons and propulsion systems don’t you ?
Thanks to the likes of Adam Bandt et al I can see this debate getting very silly very quickly.
A Chernobyl in every city ? Really ?