AUKUS
http://www.seapixonline.com/NSImages...17-10-2012.jpg
That maybe impractical because they dont want to float the section so they might make into 3-4 bits, reactor, 1-2 engineering sections and the propulsor and just use a crane to load and unload from a bulk carrier. Now that I think about sections is the way easier than a lift ship
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,111
Received 19 Likes
on
12 Posts
Jed Babbin was pretty accurate about our Gallic chums.
Evertonian
Suspicion breeds confidence
HMS Astute has just arrived in Perth. What a coincidence. Expect to see an announcement of her being based there in the not too distant future or even transferred to the RAN
Last edited by Navaleye; 29th Oct 2021 at 11:24.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn’t prove anything of course, but it could very well be seen as straws in the wind. Doubt a permanent transfer is on the cards, but a long-term deployment would certainly provide scope for the training and familiarisation of both crew and base support personnel.
*Coordinated ASW is the phrase you want. On which note, I wonder if any ASW related programmes are part of AUKUS? RAN ASW helicopters have taken part in UK/NATO exercises.
as to the ASW australia has been focusing on it, with the new M-60R's and 14 posiedens
Last edited by rattman; 29th Oct 2021 at 21:02.
Not so much escort as consort. Saying the carrier has escorts suggests that the other warships in a task group just defend the carrier, and that the carrier is passive. Submarines and frigates (in RN terminology) work in conjunction with the ASW helicopters. Continuously operating ASW helicopters around the clock requires a big deck with multiple aircraft.
Likewise a carrier's fighters are frequently controlled by an AAW destroyer.
All of this provides a defence over a large area, and the carrier may be used to protect things like amphibious forces or seaborne logistics - which was the main role of US and UK carriers during the Cold War, and is coming back to the fore in a new era of great power competition.
There must be a better term than 'escort'.
Likewise a carrier's fighters are frequently controlled by an AAW destroyer.
All of this provides a defence over a large area, and the carrier may be used to protect things like amphibious forces or seaborne logistics - which was the main role of US and UK carriers during the Cold War, and is coming back to the fore in a new era of great power competition.
There must be a better term than 'escort'.
Just terminology in the end. Even the MOD cant be consistent, saw artful listed as part of the escorts making up CSG21, then latter they said CSG 21 + artful. In the end what ever term you want to use for it US and UK carrier battlegroups always have an SSN as a member of the CSG/CBG. Which for 21 is artful and not Astute.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 30th Oct 2021 at 02:26.
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article in the New York Times today expressing doubt over the whole project. Starting to look like too much submarine. No way are they going to be built in Adelaide. That is fantasy land.Hope this is not a fiasco in the making. Did everybody have their grownup pants on when they signed up for it ??
Guess it's just interpretation.
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.
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.
Do both share the same Crossection?
If not who wins?
Or do you always go for the bigger of the two dimensions?
In an always cramped Sub if you need to squeeze your crap in a narrower or lower Hull, all Off- the- Shelf goes out the window and you start basically from scratch. Also all the piping and wiring will be a nightmare to combine.
This approach clearly sounds 'interesting'.
Wow.
Do both share the same Crossection?
If not who wins?
Or do you always go for the bigger of the two dimensions?
In an always cramped Sub if you need to squeeze your crap in a narrower or lower Hull, all Off- the- Shelf goes out the window and you start basically from scratch. Also all the piping and wiring will be a nightmare to combine.
This approach clearly sounds 'interesting'.
Do both share the same Crossection?
If not who wins?
Or do you always go for the bigger of the two dimensions?
In an always cramped Sub if you need to squeeze your crap in a narrower or lower Hull, all Off- the- Shelf goes out the window and you start basically from scratch. Also all the piping and wiring will be a nightmare to combine.
This approach clearly sounds 'interesting'.
Submarines are built is sections and assembled together. Same way planes are built and even many ships are buiilt as blocks
Indeed. Many internal modules, like the command deck, are also built separately then slid into the partially assembled hull.
The UK builds SSN & SSBN in a small town in NE England. I fail to see why so many hold the Australians to be incapable of replicating these facilities. True, the reactors and some other internal systems will have to be imported, but the rest is just marine engineering. What's the problem?
The UK builds SSN & SSBN in a small town in NE England. I fail to see why so many hold the Australians to be incapable of replicating these facilities. True, the reactors and some other internal systems will have to be imported, but the rest is just marine engineering. What's the problem?
