AUKUS
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 276
From: GMT
"Take away the Force de Frappe and France is only a middle power with no power projection capability."
Could say much the same about one of the other AUSUS partners I guess - but the French would point out they actually own their missiles - they don't rent them by the hour
Could say much the same about one of the other AUSUS partners I guess - but the French would point out they actually own their missiles - they don't rent them by the hour
No opportunity to knock the UK missed eh, Asturius!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 813
Likes: 429
From: Portsmouth
"Take away the Force de Frappe and France is only a middle power with no power projection capability."
Could say much the same about one of the other AUSUS partners I guess - but the French would point out they actually own their missiles - they don't rent them by the hour
Could say much the same about one of the other AUSUS partners I guess - but the French would point out they actually own their missiles - they don't rent them by the hour
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,245
Likes: 1,657
From: Ferrara
Pretty pointless trying to sub-divide contributions in joint operations. The French are leading in Mali with UK and other support, the UK leads in other areas with allied support
remember that the UK was dependent for several years on NATO to provide marine recce - which a lot of people (including me) found unbelievable for a maritime nation.
That's the point of alliances - and we shouldn't resort to simple nationalistic point scoring if we want them to continue.
The alternative is a vast increase in spending (which won't happen) or a big cut in what we can do (which I think would be unwise)
remember that the UK was dependent for several years on NATO to provide marine recce - which a lot of people (including me) found unbelievable for a maritime nation.
That's the point of alliances - and we shouldn't resort to simple nationalistic point scoring if we want them to continue.
The alternative is a vast increase in spending (which won't happen) or a big cut in what we can do (which I think would be unwise)
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,142
Likes: 58
From: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Pretty pointless trying to sub-divide contributions in joint operations. The French are leading in Mali with UK and other support, the UK leads in other areas with allied support
remember that the UK was dependent for several years on NATO to provide marine recce - which a lot of people (including me) found unbelievable for a maritime nation.
That's the point of alliances - and we shouldn't resort to simple nationalistic point scoring if we want them to continue.
The alternative is a vast increase in spending (which won't happen) or a big cut in what we can do (which I think would be unwise)
remember that the UK was dependent for several years on NATO to provide marine recce - which a lot of people (including me) found unbelievable for a maritime nation.
That's the point of alliances - and we shouldn't resort to simple nationalistic point scoring if we want them to continue.
The alternative is a vast increase in spending (which won't happen) or a big cut in what we can do (which I think would be unwise)
Administrator
Joined: Apr 2015
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 1,612
From: The Gulf Coast
If you would all like to engage in a discussion about the operations in Mali, and the air support pertaining to said operations, please begin a new thread on that and I'll move the posts over to that thread.
(It is certainly on topic for Military Aviation)
Please do not bloat the AUKUS/Submarine thread with that off-topic (for this thread) discussion.
Thanks in advance.
(It is certainly on topic for Military Aviation)
Please do not bloat the AUKUS/Submarine thread with that off-topic (for this thread) discussion.
Thanks in advance.
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,921
Likes: 611
From: surfing, watching for sharks
Forbes op/ed advocating for Australia to learn the ropes of nuke boat ops with retiring Los Angeles class submarines.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craigho...h=22c455d44a6b
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craigho...h=22c455d44a6b
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
Probably one of the best and a well thought out articles on the nuclear submarine deal
https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-...e-the-options/
https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-...e-the-options/
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: Oz
Excellent article rattman.
Looking more like strategic overreach every day.
Why does the RAN think it needs the capability to patrol as far away as the Bering Strait and engage the Chinese in their home waters ?
Surely the main game is defending the approaches to Australia and the Sunda and Malacca straits.
Why dissipate a limited capability with strategic overreach and mission creep ?
The Yanks and maybe the Japanese are the only ones who need the capability to engage the Chinese in the South China Sea.
Why are we even thinking about it ?
Looking more like strategic overreach every day.
Why does the RAN think it needs the capability to patrol as far away as the Bering Strait and engage the Chinese in their home waters ?
Surely the main game is defending the approaches to Australia and the Sunda and Malacca straits.
Why dissipate a limited capability with strategic overreach and mission creep ?
The Yanks and maybe the Japanese are the only ones who need the capability to engage the Chinese in the South China Sea.
Why are we even thinking about it ?
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 638
Likes: 101
From: australia
Forbes op/ed advocating for Australia to learn the ropes of nuke boat ops with retiring Los Angeles class submarines.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craigho...h=22c455d44a6b
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craigho...h=22c455d44a6b
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
Although getting an old nuke sub was an option put forward by the politicians. A recent Senate budget hearing was told ADF intends to gap the Collins sub. With other platforms and weapons. This life extension is for 10 years and there may not be enough hull life left to do a second life extension. So we will see what the next 16 months brings.
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,921
Likes: 611
From: surfing, watching for sharks
Excellent article rattman.
Looking more like strategic overreach every day.
Why does the RAN think it needs the capability to patrol as far away as the Bering Strait and engage the Chinese in their home waters ?
Surely the main game is defending the approaches to Australia and the Sunda and Malacca straits.
Why dissipate a limited capability with strategic overreach and mission creep ?
The Yanks and maybe the Japanese are the only ones who need the capability to engage the Chinese in the South China Sea.
Why are we even thinking about it ?
Looking more like strategic overreach every day.
Why does the RAN think it needs the capability to patrol as far away as the Bering Strait and engage the Chinese in their home waters ?
Surely the main game is defending the approaches to Australia and the Sunda and Malacca straits.
Why dissipate a limited capability with strategic overreach and mission creep ?
The Yanks and maybe the Japanese are the only ones who need the capability to engage the Chinese in the South China Sea.
Why are we even thinking about it ?
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: Oz
But the Cold War is over.
Deploying an Attack class nuclear submarine in the South China Sea is something totally different. It is either area denial , which comes close to an act of war, or it is to interdict Chinese submarines to prevent a second strike from their SLBMs.
Hard to see how either are within the scope of Australia’s strategic interests.
We are not a global power seeking to project power.
Taking on China as if we are is a big mistake.
Looks to me like a potential cluster f……
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,921
Likes: 611
From: surfing, watching for sharks
During the Cold War having the ability to patrol the North Pacific (ie The Soviet Union) made perfect sense.
But the Cold War is over.
Deploying an Attack class nuclear submarine in the South China Sea is something totally different. It is either area denial , which comes close to an act of war, or it is to interdict Chinese submarines to prevent a second strike from their SLBMs.
Hard to see how either are within the scope of Australia’s strategic interests.
We are not a global power seeking to project power.
Taking on China as if we are is a big mistake.
Looks to me like a potential cluster f……
But the Cold War is over.
Deploying an Attack class nuclear submarine in the South China Sea is something totally different. It is either area denial , which comes close to an act of war, or it is to interdict Chinese submarines to prevent a second strike from their SLBMs.
Hard to see how either are within the scope of Australia’s strategic interests.
We are not a global power seeking to project power.
Taking on China as if we are is a big mistake.
Looks to me like a potential cluster f……
The areas you mentioned (straights, approaches to Oz) are still a fair distance from your shores. The time on station in these areas is significantly less for a conventionally powered submarine compared to a nuclear one. Towards the beginning of the thread, there’s a link that compares time on station vs distance from Australia. Can’t speak to the accuracy of it, but if it’s even close, the differences are significant.
You don’t have to sail within sight of China to yield benefits of operating a nuclear submarine.
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: Oz
The areas you mentioned (straights, approaches to Oz) are still a fair distance from your shores. The time on station in these areas is significantly less for a conventionally powered submarine compared to a nuclear one. Towards the beginning of the thread, there’s a link that compares time on station vs distance from Australia. Can’t speak to the accuracy of it, but if it’s even close, the differences are significant.
You don’t have to sail within sight of China to yield benefits of operating a nuclear submarine.
You don’t have to sail within sight of China to yield benefits of operating a nuclear submarine.
But they have more than enough endurance for home waters defence.
Still reckon the Virginia Class is way too much submarine.
I will be surprised if it ever happens.
Should have just gone with the Soryu class with an American TCC system.
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,921
Likes: 611
From: surfing, watching for sharks
The biggest disadvantages of conventional submarines are the “ indiscretion rate “ and speed. The Collins class cant keep up with a US Carrier Group for example.
But they have more than enough endurance for home waters defence.
Still reckon the Virginia Class is way too much submarine.
I will be surprised if it ever happens.
Should have just gone with the Soryu class with an American TCC system.
But they have more than enough endurance for home waters defence.
Still reckon the Virginia Class is way too much submarine.
I will be surprised if it ever happens.
Should have just gone with the Soryu class with an American TCC system.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 151
From: A better place.
Reading that Hennessy book that an earlier poster mentioned.
Fascinating - can highly recommend it - crikey - the risks that British submariners took in the 50s sailing up to Nova Zemlya etc.
And Rickover sounds like a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work.
The battle by the Brits to get the US to hand over the reactor technology places the significance of the AUKUS announcement in correct context.
It really is a huge deal for the Americans to agree to hand over the technology to anyone else.
Fascinating - can highly recommend it - crikey - the risks that British submariners took in the 50s sailing up to Nova Zemlya etc.
And Rickover sounds like a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work.
The battle by the Brits to get the US to hand over the reactor technology places the significance of the AUKUS announcement in correct context.
It really is a huge deal for the Americans to agree to hand over the technology to anyone else.
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 638
Likes: 101
From: australia
During the Cold War having the ability to patrol the North Pacific (ie The Soviet Union) made perfect sense.
But the Cold War is over.
Deploying an Attack class nuclear submarine in the South China Sea is something totally different. It is either area denial , which comes close to an act of war, or it is to interdict Chinese submarines to prevent a second strike from their SLBMs.
Hard to see how either are within the scope of Australia’s strategic interests.
We are not a global power seeking to project power.
Taking on China as if we are is a big mistake.
Looks to me like a potential cluster f……
But the Cold War is over.
Deploying an Attack class nuclear submarine in the South China Sea is something totally different. It is either area denial , which comes close to an act of war, or it is to interdict Chinese submarines to prevent a second strike from their SLBMs.
Hard to see how either are within the scope of Australia’s strategic interests.
We are not a global power seeking to project power.
Taking on China as if we are is a big mistake.
Looks to me like a potential cluster f……
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war...-revealed.html
The video showed a very clear footage cleverly taken by HMAS Orion. The submarine skillfully escaped the unwanted notice of the Soviet Charlie-class nuclear submarine by sneaking beneath and behind the Soviet sub as it headed towards the Soviet naval base.
The footage took images of the Soviet submarine as it was headed towards the Vietnamese port. The camera was secured on the periscope of the Orion which took the footage as the submarine dangerously floated on the rough sea. The location was set 12-nautical miles or 22.2 kilometers outside of Vietnamese territorial limit.
The Orion then took a deep dive close behind the Soviet sub and then to a barely submerged depth again following the surfacing of the Soviet submarine. The prime minister was glued to the video alarmed as he watched the propeller of the Soviet sub in close proximity to the Orion. He also took a glimpse of the Soviet Charlie-class technology from underneath including the ship’s sonar and hull.
The Orion then positioned ahead and still beneath of the Soviet submarine. Pitt then maneuvered the Orion to almost a halt. The Soviet sub hummed pass by without a clue of the watching Australian eyes allowing the Orion to get clear images of the other side of its hull. The photographs and the video itself provided intelligence that could only be gathered if spies were to infiltrate and take the images on the dry Vietnamese port.
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 19th November 2021 at 17:55. Reason: ‘The’ or ‘HMAS’, never both!
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,401
Likes: 141
From: NSW
Even the old Orion played the the SCS
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war...-revealed.html
The video showed a very clear footage cleverly taken by HMAS Orion. The submarine skillfully escaped the unwanted notice of the Soviet Charlie-class nuclear submarine by sneaking beneath and behind the Soviet sub as it headed towards the Soviet naval base.
The footage took images of the Soviet submarine as it was headed towards the Vietnamese port. The camera was secured on the periscope of the Orion which took the footage as the submarine dangerously floated on the rough sea. The location was set 12-nautical miles or 22.2 kilometers outside of Vietnamese territorial limit.
The Orion then took a deep dive close behind the Soviet sub and then to a barely submerged depth again following the surfacing of the Soviet submarine. The prime minister was glued to the video alarmed as he watched the propeller of the Soviet sub in close proximity to the Orion. He also took a glimpse of the Soviet Charlie-class technology from underneath including the ship’s sonar and hull.
The Orion then positioned ahead and still beneath of the Soviet submarine. Pitt then maneuvered the Orion to almost a halt. The Soviet sub hummed pass by without a clue of the watching Australian eyes allowing the Orion to get clear images of the other side of its hull. The photographs and the video itself provided intelligence that could only be gathered if spies were to infiltrate and take the images on the dry Vietnamese port.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war...-revealed.html
The video showed a very clear footage cleverly taken by HMAS Orion. The submarine skillfully escaped the unwanted notice of the Soviet Charlie-class nuclear submarine by sneaking beneath and behind the Soviet sub as it headed towards the Soviet naval base.
The footage took images of the Soviet submarine as it was headed towards the Vietnamese port. The camera was secured on the periscope of the Orion which took the footage as the submarine dangerously floated on the rough sea. The location was set 12-nautical miles or 22.2 kilometers outside of Vietnamese territorial limit.
The Orion then took a deep dive close behind the Soviet sub and then to a barely submerged depth again following the surfacing of the Soviet submarine. The prime minister was glued to the video alarmed as he watched the propeller of the Soviet sub in close proximity to the Orion. He also took a glimpse of the Soviet Charlie-class technology from underneath including the ship’s sonar and hull.
The Orion then positioned ahead and still beneath of the Soviet submarine. Pitt then maneuvered the Orion to almost a halt. The Soviet sub hummed pass by without a clue of the watching Australian eyes allowing the Orion to get clear images of the other side of its hull. The photographs and the video itself provided intelligence that could only be gathered if spies were to infiltrate and take the images on the dry Vietnamese port.
The true value of subs. My view is that we need 6 boomers and say 6 smaller boats to cover the deep ocean vast distances and a littoral sub...
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 19th November 2021 at 17:55. Reason: Fix quote