AUKUS
Tell NZ to go take a cold shower. Banning nukes and little to contribute doesn't cut it...they can't have it both ways! [or maybe Ardern can]
Originally Posted by TBM-Legend
Tell NZ to go take a cold shower. Banning nukes and little to contribute doesn't cut it...they can't have it both ways! [or maybe Ardern can]
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Can’t see it on three grounds.
Firstly, what would NZ bring to the table to earn a seat at the table? I cant see anything.
Secondly membership would allow them a disruptive voice on an6 decisions, whether nuclear or not - as already proven over 5 Eyes discussions.
Lastly, with the deep involvement of China in companies and universities in NZ, the risk would high of any research into new technology, cyber, quantum or other, rapidly being passed on to Chinese researchers.
Firstly, what would NZ bring to the table to earn a seat at the table? I cant see anything.
Secondly membership would allow them a disruptive voice on an6 decisions, whether nuclear or not - as already proven over 5 Eyes discussions.
Lastly, with the deep involvement of China in companies and universities in NZ, the risk would high of any research into new technology, cyber, quantum or other, rapidly being passed on to Chinese researchers.
Originally Posted by ORAC
Can’t see it on three grounds.
Firstly, what would NZ bring to the table to earn a seat at the table? I cant see anything.
Secondly membership would allow them a disruptive voice on an6 decisions, whether nuclear or not - as already proven over 5 Eyes discussions.
Lastly, with the deep involvement of China in companies and universities in NZ, the risk would high of any research into new technology, cyber, quantum or other, rapidly being passed on to Chinese researchers.
Firstly, what would NZ bring to the table to earn a seat at the table? I cant see anything.
Secondly membership would allow them a disruptive voice on an6 decisions, whether nuclear or not - as already proven over 5 Eyes discussions.
Lastly, with the deep involvement of China in companies and universities in NZ, the risk would high of any research into new technology, cyber, quantum or other, rapidly being passed on to Chinese researchers.
The RAN fronted senate estimates today. Only seen bits, waiting for the full transcript but interest things
The head of the nuclear submarine taskforce, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, has told the committee that Australia intended to select a "mature design" for its nuclear submarine, to be built under the AUKUS security partnership.
also think he said hopes to 1 maybe 2 ready by 2040
The head of the nuclear submarine taskforce, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, has told the committee that Australia intended to select a "mature design" for its nuclear submarine, to be built under the AUKUS security partnership.
also think he said hopes to 1 maybe 2 ready by 2040
Suspicion breeds confidence
Astute would be the ideal design and the tooling can be transferred after UK boat 7 is completed. The PWR-2 or 3 debate is a smokescreen as neither of them require refuelling during their service lives.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rattman
The RAN fronted senate estimates today. Only seen bits, waiting for the full transcript but interest things
The head of the nuclear submarine taskforce, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, has told the committee that Australia intended to select a "mature design" for its nuclear submarine, to be built under the AUKUS security partnership.
also think he said hopes to 1 maybe 2 ready by 2040
The head of the nuclear submarine taskforce, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, has told the committee that Australia intended to select a "mature design" for its nuclear submarine, to be built under the AUKUS security partnership.
also think he said hopes to 1 maybe 2 ready by 2040
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Assuming France would have agreed to change the contract to nuclear, and at what cost, I doub5 th3 first would have been delivered by 2035.
Also, seeing as they were complaining they couldn’t even get to 60% local build content on a conventional boat, I doubt that even. 20-30% local content would have been offered - totally against the entire Australian required concept of locally built and supplied support (see previous video ref the Collins class).
Lastly that would have required the entire fleet to b3 refuelled every 5 years in France, placing the entire force at the mercy of French political designs. Seeing as they are pushing a pro-China policy in the EU that would have been an unacceptable risk.
But apart from that, you have a point.
Also, seeing as they were complaining they couldn’t even get to 60% local build content on a conventional boat, I doubt that even. 20-30% local content would have been offered - totally against the entire Australian required concept of locally built and supplied support (see previous video ref the Collins class).
Lastly that would have required the entire fleet to b3 refuelled every 5 years in France, placing the entire force at the mercy of French political designs. Seeing as they are pushing a pro-China policy in the EU that would have been an unacceptable risk.
But apart from that, you have a point.
Originally Posted by balboa1968
I told you 1 month ago, 1or 2 sub in 2040, if the RAN takes the Suffren class, it will be all 12 before 2035 ! Game, Set and Match !
If Australia develops a submarine capability gap, AUKUS will fill it with non-sovereign assets with regular rotations through expanded east and west coast infrastructures. Many Australians will find this palatable as opposed to relying on French good will in the face of CCP coercion! And this is what many folks seem to forget-AUKUS is about protecting a country who is standing up to China more than most and having far more to lose economically than most. China's pressure on Australia has strategic ambitions little different to Imperial Japanese forces in 1942. Fracture and isolate Australia from the US and secure the western reaches of the Pacific.
The ADF is also being rapidly expanded with capabilities delivering a long range punch to offset a delayed deployment of Collins replacements.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
Assuming France would have agreed to change the contract to nuclear, and at what cost, I doub5 th3 first would have been delivered by 2035.
Also, seeing as they were complaining they couldn’t even get to 60% local build content on a conventional boat, I doubt that even. 20-30% local content would have been offered - totally against the entire Australian required concept of locally built and supplied support (see previous video ref the Collins class).
Lastly that would have required the entire fleet to b3 refuelled every 5 years in France, placing the entire force at the mercy of French political designs. Seeing as they are pushing a pro-China policy in the EU that would have been an unacceptable risk.
But apart from that, you have a point.
Also, seeing as they were complaining they couldn’t even get to 60% local build content on a conventional boat, I doubt that even. 20-30% local content would have been offered - totally against the entire Australian required concept of locally built and supplied support (see previous video ref the Collins class).
Lastly that would have required the entire fleet to b3 refuelled every 5 years in France, placing the entire force at the mercy of French political designs. Seeing as they are pushing a pro-China policy in the EU that would have been an unacceptable risk.
But apart from that, you have a point.
IMHO Australia will never get the latest nuke subs from the US.
One hates to criticise our French neighbours, but I suspect that the Australian Government were aware of certain issues, see below.
1. A document relating to non UK or Soviet/Russian naval/marine nuclear propulsion. It seems that ORAC was right about low enrichment levels.
2. A discussion of political and integration problems relating to the design and construction of the FS Charles de Gaulle - from here. First class engineering, but woeful project management.
Given that this is an aviation forum, are their any ASW aspects to AUKUS arrangements, relating to the P-8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft or naval ASW helicopters?
1. A document relating to non UK or Soviet/Russian naval/marine nuclear propulsion. It seems that ORAC was right about low enrichment levels.
2. A discussion of political and integration problems relating to the design and construction of the FS Charles de Gaulle - from here. First class engineering, but woeful project management.
Given that this is an aviation forum, are their any ASW aspects to AUKUS arrangements, relating to the P-8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft or naval ASW helicopters?
Originally Posted by rattman
Just waiting for the announcement that australia is going to lease 2 american subs probably 688's but I cant discount earlier blocks 1 virginia's that are at hawaii
https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-a...0210919-p58syl
Australia plans to lease and share existing nuclear-powered submarines years before acquisition, narrowing a risk the American or British subs arrive too late to counter China’s rapid military expansion in the Indo-Pacific.
Australia plans to lease and share existing nuclear-powered submarines years before acquisition, narrowing a risk the American or British subs arrive too late to counter China’s rapid military expansion in the Indo-Pacific.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 925
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if there is a feeling in RAN that they need to get a nuclear powered sub ASAP in case the political climate changes (eg Greens get balance of power in a hung parliament).
Once they have one in fleet (even if leased) then much harder to reverse the decision re an RAN nuclear powered sub fleet.
Once they have one in fleet (even if leased) then much harder to reverse the decision re an RAN nuclear powered sub fleet.
Last edited by rjtjrt; 29th Oct 2021 at 02:11.
Interesting.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au...r-powered-subs
We build the front half, and the Yanks build the back half.
What could possibly go wrong???!!!!
Just as long as they're really clear regarding metric, or imperial
https://www.australiandefence.com.au...r-powered-subs
We build the front half, and the Yanks build the back half.
What could possibly go wrong???!!!!
Just as long as they're really clear regarding metric, or imperial
Originally Posted by tartare
Interesting.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au...r-powered-subs
We build the front half, and the Yanks build the back half.
What could possibly go wrong???!!!!
https://www.australiandefence.com.au...r-powered-subs
We build the front half, and the Yanks build the back half.
What could possibly go wrong???!!!!
Not sure that new news in any form, the plans have always been the nuclear plant and engineering would be built somewhere else, shipped to aus then mated with the rest. The actuall % could be new info considering collins something like 60% local, I think 60% local on a nuclear would be completely unrealistic
Last edited by rattman; 29th Oct 2021 at 02:29.
Fair enough, he has an election early next year and has to play to his domestic audience. However, he must realise that France needs the US,UK and AU far more in the Pacific, than they need France.
https://www.skynews.com.au/world-new...658264b570e847
The phone exchange between the two leaders was largely tense where Mr Macron doubled down on his comments Australia had "broken the relation of trust between our two countries..It is now up to the Australian Government to propose tangible actions that embody the political will of Australia's highest authorities to redefine the bias of our bilateral relationship and continue join action in the Indo-Pacific," the Elysee Palace said.
https://www.skynews.com.au/world-new...658264b570e847
The phone exchange between the two leaders was largely tense where Mr Macron doubled down on his comments Australia had "broken the relation of trust between our two countries..It is now up to the Australian Government to propose tangible actions that embody the political will of Australia's highest authorities to redefine the bias of our bilateral relationship and continue join action in the Indo-Pacific," the Elysee Palace said.
Originally Posted by rattman
Not sure that new news in any form, the plans have always been the nuclear plant and engineering would be built somewhere else, shipped to aus then mated with the rest. The actuall % could be new info considering collins something like 60% local, I think 60% local on a nuclear would be completely unrealistic
The way I read the latest story was it was being suggested that Oz would build the entire front half, the US the entire back half, and then they'd be mated.
Both the Virginia and Astute boats are assembled in modules after all, so I suppose it's technically possible.
And if the RAN does get the Virginia class, it may be a way of addressing the production line constraints at Newport News, due to USN orders.
But how you'd get half a sub down here, or up there... maybe I'm reading it too literally.
