AUKUS
Bit of an irrelevant republican outburst .
However, keeping on topic historically, lots of researchable information online about Australia's direction in the sixties and choice not to pursue nuclear weapons. I'd argue that Australia, based on where it is positioned in the world and if it chose non-alignment, would have required a nuclear deterrent.
However, keeping on topic historically, lots of researchable information online about Australia's direction in the sixties and choice not to pursue nuclear weapons. I'd argue that Australia, based on where it is positioned in the world and if it chose non-alignment, would have required a nuclear deterrent.
The usual Republican spiel. Keating-esque propaganda.
Becoming a Republic would make precisely zero difference.
Australia’s strategic position would be exactly the same. What would make a difference would be if we increased defence spending to over 5% of GDP and committed to designing and manufacturing our own fighters, missiles, submarines , tanks and artillery etc. etc.
Like Sweden.
But its not going to happen.
We snapped up the opportunity to acquire the Virginia Class for the same reason we acquired the F35 , and before that of course the F18 ,the E-7A Wedgetail ,the P-8A Poseidon ,the Tactical Command and Control system for the Collins Class etc. etc. etc.
Because we cant or wont do it ourself.
Plus huge bang for our bucks , massive capability for a middle power and interoperability and continued alliance with our most import strategic ally.
Its called reality.
Becoming a Republic would make precisely zero difference.
Australia’s strategic position would be exactly the same. What would make a difference would be if we increased defence spending to over 5% of GDP and committed to designing and manufacturing our own fighters, missiles, submarines , tanks and artillery etc. etc.
Like Sweden.
But its not going to happen.
We snapped up the opportunity to acquire the Virginia Class for the same reason we acquired the F35 , and before that of course the F18 ,the E-7A Wedgetail ,the P-8A Poseidon ,the Tactical Command and Control system for the Collins Class etc. etc. etc.
Because we cant or wont do it ourself.
Plus huge bang for our bucks , massive capability for a middle power and interoperability and continued alliance with our most import strategic ally.
Its called reality.
"Anyone would think making subs is hard"
precisely - the US has had its moments as have the Russians - the point being that a betting man wouldn't put odds on home-built Australian SSN's for a considerable time.
I still think its the right decision to acquire them but its pure political spin to envisage they'll all be built in Australia.
precisely - the US has had its moments as have the Russians - the point being that a betting man wouldn't put odds on home-built Australian SSN's for a considerable time.
I still think its the right decision to acquire them but its pure political spin to envisage they'll all be built in Australia.
"No one has mentioned anything about what we are buying other than that it will be nuclear powered."
Given that it is going to be British or American there really isn't much choice - waiting for a new design would push back in service dates by over a decade. Taking a current design and modifying would be a very bad idea (see numerous posts above).
Given the small number of "Astutes", the slow roll -out rate and the need to start building new SSBNs in the UK, it looks very likely to be a "Virginia" - possibly second hand to start with. Still a lot of punch for your dollar
Given that it is going to be British or American there really isn't much choice - waiting for a new design would push back in service dates by over a decade. Taking a current design and modifying would be a very bad idea (see numerous posts above).
Given the small number of "Astutes", the slow roll -out rate and the need to start building new SSBNs in the UK, it looks very likely to be a "Virginia" - possibly second hand to start with. Still a lot of punch for your dollar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brizzle
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only is it hard, but for many countries you have a lack of continuity, leading to skills and knowledge loss. something the UK is trying to solve with Astute > Dreadnought > SSN(R). The benefit for the US is continuous production, allowing EB to maintain their skills.
Designing and building a new submarine every 25 years makes a hard job much more difficult.
I think this is one of the issues why the French have reacted so badly - they now see a large gap where their sub design team is not active.
Designing and building a new submarine every 25 years makes a hard job much more difficult.
I think this is one of the issues why the French have reacted so badly - they now see a large gap where their sub design team is not active.
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Under a tree in the NT
Posts: 148
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about something that has already been modified to take cruise missiles such as the early Ohio's, as a stop gap?
But for virginia's theres a large amount available for just adding a few crewman onto each or having some of them just rotate through stirling each spending a couple of months just doing training cruise or shorter "combat cruises" with RAN taking some the postions. Also specifically with the Ohio's I think the political optics of using an SSBN even modified might be a bridge to far. Also the issues with the 160-170 needed for one
If the virginia or some deriviative of it picked I think (assuming the yanks are in on it) leasing some of the early model virginia's based at hawaii for a for a few years, or some them permanently deploying to stirling would be the goto plan for the navy. Theres like 20 or so in service theres a enough that even adding a few RAN to each will get trained crew and a not have a real effect on the a crewing of the collins that will still need to be crewed during this period
We could look at what the defence minister said...Lease or buy EXISTING sub. To me that is a sub that is in the water now, not one that is being built. The US would be the only one and for a short to mid term, A longer term build Astute, or joint UK/AU on their SSNR and build ours in Australia, with US fire systems. It helps both the UK and AU, more than the US. I can't see the US being bothered doing the same and they benefit by the UK and AU having a solid base.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lease a couple of hulls, and hire some crew from knowledgeable navies, and miracle, you have a submarine force. How easy.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not so familiar with Oz politics and military doctrine but given it is Pacific/Indian oceans how much you can do with diesel submarines anyway? There are some enclosed theatres like Baltic sea, North sea, Black see and Mediterranean where the diesel submarines make sense cost/capability wise but Pacific??? What is the best mission OZ can carry with a diesel submarine - a friendly visit to NZ accompanied by a tanker all the way?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
JAUKUS? It could be, politically, argued, that a submarine reactor is peaceful, being similar to a land based reactor, and not weapons related….
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/j...ines-b66xs2plr
Japanese PM candidate backs nuclear submarines
The popular choice to be Japan’s next prime minister believes that the country should acquire nuclear-powered submarines, a move that would drastically increase military tension in east Asia, following the announcement that Australia is to do so.
Taro Kono was speaking during a televised debate among candidates to be the next leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). The LDP has a decisive parliamentary majority, meaning that the winner of Wednesday’s party election will be voted in as prime minister next Monday.
“It is very important for Japan to have nuclear submarine capability,” said Kono, 58, yesterday. “The question of whether there are regions willing to accept them as home port, their operational capability, and realistic costs will have to be examined.”
The complexities of the LDP election system, and the fact that three other candidates are running, make the upcoming party election unpredictable and Kono is not guaranteed to win. But he remains the most popular candidate among the general public, and his open support for nuclear submarines, which would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago, is a sign of how quickly old assumptions about defence and security in Asia are changing.
Tokyo has welcomed the formation of Aukus, a defence pact between Britain, the United States and Australia, which will provide nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra. Japan already has 20 diesel-powered submarines and although its defence chiefs would undoubtedly welcome the long-range and stealth of nuclear submarines, compared with Australia their strategic need is not so great.…….
Japan’s nuclear energy law specifies that nuclear power can be used only for peaceful purposes, a stipulation intended to block spent nuclear fuel from being reprocessed into the fuel for nuclear warheads – but which also represents an obstacle to nuclear-powered, conventionally armed, vessels.
Any move to change the law would be met with public anxiety and strong political opposition.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/j...ines-b66xs2plr
Japanese PM candidate backs nuclear submarines
The popular choice to be Japan’s next prime minister believes that the country should acquire nuclear-powered submarines, a move that would drastically increase military tension in east Asia, following the announcement that Australia is to do so.
Taro Kono was speaking during a televised debate among candidates to be the next leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). The LDP has a decisive parliamentary majority, meaning that the winner of Wednesday’s party election will be voted in as prime minister next Monday.
“It is very important for Japan to have nuclear submarine capability,” said Kono, 58, yesterday. “The question of whether there are regions willing to accept them as home port, their operational capability, and realistic costs will have to be examined.”
The complexities of the LDP election system, and the fact that three other candidates are running, make the upcoming party election unpredictable and Kono is not guaranteed to win. But he remains the most popular candidate among the general public, and his open support for nuclear submarines, which would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago, is a sign of how quickly old assumptions about defence and security in Asia are changing.
Tokyo has welcomed the formation of Aukus, a defence pact between Britain, the United States and Australia, which will provide nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra. Japan already has 20 diesel-powered submarines and although its defence chiefs would undoubtedly welcome the long-range and stealth of nuclear submarines, compared with Australia their strategic need is not so great.…….
Japan’s nuclear energy law specifies that nuclear power can be used only for peaceful purposes, a stipulation intended to block spent nuclear fuel from being reprocessed into the fuel for nuclear warheads – but which also represents an obstacle to nuclear-powered, conventionally armed, vessels.
Any move to change the law would be met with public anxiety and strong political opposition.
I am not so familiar with Oz politics and military doctrine but given it is Pacific/Indian oceans how much you can do with diesel submarines anyway? There are some enclosed theatres like Baltic sea, North sea, Black see and Mediterranean where the diesel submarines make sense cost/capability wise but Pacific??? What is the best mission OZ can carry with a diesel submarine - a friendly visit to NZ accompanied by a tanker all the way?
The whole china sea in reality is sorta enclosed theres only a few ways in and out, so much of shipping has to through enclosed straights, the video linked below he looks at it the shipping routes and just look at suff going through the big straits like malacca
The French deal was for converting their nuclear subs to diesel electric with most (90%) of the work to be done in Australia and was won against good bids from Germany and Japan. The Oz mission then was to go near Indonesia for intelligence gathering including counter terrorism and people smuggling. The Oz mission has now changed to counter China especially as they are building super carriers and their own nuclear subs. At the same time the French deal was blowing out in total cost and the proportion to be done in Oz dropped (I think to 50%) on last negotiations.
We now have F35's that can network with the USAF. We have AEGIS Hobart class destroyers that network with the USN. So it makes sense for our subs to network with the USN. Not sure how the British can help but they have had the one sinking of a cruiser by a nuclear sub. That sent the entire Argentine navy back to port. The French need to " passer à autre chose "
We now have F35's that can network with the USAF. We have AEGIS Hobart class destroyers that network with the USN. So it makes sense for our subs to network with the USN. Not sure how the British can help but they have had the one sinking of a cruiser by a nuclear sub. That sent the entire Argentine navy back to port. The French need to " passer à autre chose "
Theres been issues with virginia's, parts that were expected to last the life of the sub are having to be replaced. Because they were expected to never be replaced the spares dont exist so they taking them from in build subs
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...n-maintenance/
Among the biggest challenges is that the Navy assumed certain parts of the sub would last the life of the boat. However, as in-service Virginias arrived for maintenance, the Navy found it had to replace parts that weren’t supposed to need replacing. Since there aren’t spares available, maintainers have been taking the parts from the construction line, slowing down production at Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding and contributing to those new boats being late, Stefany said.
“Whether it was bad design, bad assumption, whatever — it is what it is, so now we need to go do something,” he said, and the new PEO SSN will make that easier to coordinate by having a single flag officer in charge of SSN construction and sustainment.
“Whether it was bad design, bad assumption, whatever — it is what it is, so now we need to go do something,” he said, and the new PEO SSN will make that easier to coordinate by having a single flag officer in charge of SSN construction and sustainment.
I reckon that's what they're planning.
Give Australia an older boat or two to learn the ropes - possibly even refresh the USN fleet from the bottom up by doing so.
I also wonder what's being planned SIGINT wise.
I reckon they'll be talking about expanding Pine Gap - and possibly adding to The Hook sosus network around South East Asia.
There must be a lot of very stealthy secret squirrel stuff on the shallow floor of the South China sea as well... listening...
Give Australia an older boat or two to learn the ropes - possibly even refresh the USN fleet from the bottom up by doing so.
I also wonder what's being planned SIGINT wise.
I reckon they'll be talking about expanding Pine Gap - and possibly adding to The Hook sosus network around South East Asia.
There must be a lot of very stealthy secret squirrel stuff on the shallow floor of the South China sea as well... listening...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid you will not escape so easily from the bill ....
The original plan way back IIRC was to acquire around 33 "Virginias" - Congress now seems to be looking at maybe 66 eventually. Current status is around
Completed 19
Building 11
On order 8
with 3 - 4 years between being laid down and commissioning so you could say that the current order book pretty much fulfills the original intention. Selling a few out of the future production run won't hurt, especially as they will be effectively working as USN boats against the same threats.
Completed 19
Building 11
On order 8
with 3 - 4 years between being laid down and commissioning so you could say that the current order book pretty much fulfills the original intention. Selling a few out of the future production run won't hurt, especially as they will be effectively working as USN boats against the same threats.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The USN intend to stop production of the. Irginia class in 2031, at current production rates that’s about another 20 boats, EBbthink they might be able to fit in another 4 or 5. The current fleet of around 65 subs will, on current trend, sink to the low 40s, so I don’t think they would be happy to give any up.
The USN has never been that happy with the Virginia compared with the Seawolf - see it as a kind of F-35/F -22 performance thing - and the SSNX is supposed to close that gap. So they won’t want to slip the changeover to build more Virginia class instead.
https://news.usni.org/2021/08/11/rep...ck-submarine-3
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...shortage-50512
The USN has never been that happy with the Virginia compared with the Seawolf - see it as a kind of F-35/F -22 performance thing - and the SSNX is supposed to close that gap. So they won’t want to slip the changeover to build more Virginia class instead.
https://news.usni.org/2021/08/11/rep...ck-submarine-3
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...shortage-50512
Waooh ! I hope you knew a little bit in advance what the Chinese were building. If you discovered just now what their Navy has been up to - and for many years - it speaks volume about your intelligence services....
Simply because to build more in Australia was becoming more and more unrealistic, given the local capabilities...
I'm afraid you will not escape so easily from the bill ....
Simply because to build more in Australia was becoming more and more unrealistic, given the local capabilities...
I'm afraid you will not escape so easily from the bill ....
