AUKUS
"And for those who are dismissive about Australia’s technical ability , you are ignorant. I worked for DRCS and DSTO back in the 80s and can tell you the research and development capability is substantial."
I don't think anyone disagrees - the problem isn't R&D - it's building them to time and cost . The shipyard in S Australia hasn't a great record on delivery - but that's not just an Australian problem - Canada, Russia & India all struggle. Even the USA and UK have problems - modern warships, like modern combat aircraft, are fiendishly difficult to build
I don't think anyone disagrees - the problem isn't R&D - it's building them to time and cost . The shipyard in S Australia hasn't a great record on delivery - but that's not just an Australian problem - Canada, Russia & India all struggle. Even the USA and UK have problems - modern warships, like modern combat aircraft, are fiendishly difficult to build
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...submarine-deal
Australia promises jobs to workers stranded by scrapping of French submarine deal
“Each and every” skilled shipbuilding worker affected by the federal government’s decision to scrap the existing $90bn submarine project and switch to nuclear-powered boats will have a job in the future, defence industry minister Melissa Price says.
As ongoing controversies surround the plan, Price will tell a major submarine conference in Adelaide on Tuesday that the submarines will be built in South Australia……
Defence officials told senate estimates in October that the future of up to 600 construction jobs was uncertain after the government scrapped the existing project. Another 560 people are employed directly on the existing project.
Many companies had invested in resources to become part of the supply chain for the submarines that were being bought from France’s Naval Group.
In a pre-recorded message Price said she understood the uncertainty the decision had created. She said small and medium businesses affected would be supported to compete for future work across defence programs, and that individual workers would find new jobs through a sovereign shipbuilding talent pool.
Workers will be redeployed to other projects, such as maintenance of and upgrades to the Collins-class submarines, or placed with overseas shipbuilders or governments. Others will have the opportunity to get new skills, or train in nuclear power.
“We have a solid commitment to find a role within that pool for each and every skilled shipbuilding worker affected by this announcement,” Price said.
“We will be building nuclear-powered submarines in South Australia.”….
Australia promises jobs to workers stranded by scrapping of French submarine deal
“Each and every” skilled shipbuilding worker affected by the federal government’s decision to scrap the existing $90bn submarine project and switch to nuclear-powered boats will have a job in the future, defence industry minister Melissa Price says.
As ongoing controversies surround the plan, Price will tell a major submarine conference in Adelaide on Tuesday that the submarines will be built in South Australia……
Defence officials told senate estimates in October that the future of up to 600 construction jobs was uncertain after the government scrapped the existing project. Another 560 people are employed directly on the existing project.
Many companies had invested in resources to become part of the supply chain for the submarines that were being bought from France’s Naval Group.
In a pre-recorded message Price said she understood the uncertainty the decision had created. She said small and medium businesses affected would be supported to compete for future work across defence programs, and that individual workers would find new jobs through a sovereign shipbuilding talent pool.
Workers will be redeployed to other projects, such as maintenance of and upgrades to the Collins-class submarines, or placed with overseas shipbuilders or governments. Others will have the opportunity to get new skills, or train in nuclear power.
“We have a solid commitment to find a role within that pool for each and every skilled shipbuilding worker affected by this announcement,” Price said.
“We will be building nuclear-powered submarines in South Australia.”….
Originally Posted by Asturias56
"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!
Originally Posted by Asturias56
"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
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Well MGD - they are putting infantry on the ground in a former colony..............
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)
Originally Posted by Asturias56
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
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,935
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
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
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/
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
Originally Posted by West Coast
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
Originally Posted by golder
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,935
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Alt Flieger
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 ?
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by West Coast
How far from Australian shores should a submarine have to go to defend the approaches to the homeland in your opinion? Safe to say they’d have to stay there for a period of time.
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……
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,935
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Alt Flieger
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.
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by West Coast
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,935
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Alt Flieger
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.
