AUKUS
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/key-enablers/9142-coras-partners-with-uk-firm-to-support-development-of-australian-nuclear-powered-submarine-capability
Australian management consultancy Coras has inked an agreement with the UK’s Abbott Risk Consulting to support Australia’s acquisition and transition to a nuclear-powered submarine capability.
Following September’s AUKUS announcement, Australian and British firms have begun reaching across the aisle to work together under proposed technology-sharing arrangements between the countries.
Australian management consultancy Coras has inked an agreement with the UK’s Abbott Risk Consulting to support Australia’s acquisition and transition to a nuclear-powered submarine capability.
Following September’s AUKUS announcement, Australian and British firms have begun reaching across the aisle to work together under proposed technology-sharing arrangements between the countries.
US bases on guam and in australia to be expanded, no actual details
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/29/p...ina/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/29/p...ina/index.html
Originally Posted by Going Boeing
Yes, this is the ABC’s report - it would be good to have more details.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-...alia/100661190
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-...alia/100661190
Its actually specified its internal use and restricted / top secret so we wont really know the details
In a press briefing Monday afternoon, Mara Karlin, who is performing the duties of the deputy under secretary of defense for policy, shared highlights of the review, which will not be released for the public, she said, citing classification for security reasons and to protect the confidentiality of consultations the country did with allies and partner countries.
Wonder if they'll bump up activity at Momote?
The amount of stuff still left up there from WW2 is a sight to behold.
ADDED: Interesting: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-in...nded-navy-port
The amount of stuff still left up there from WW2 is a sight to behold.
ADDED: Interesting: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-in...nded-navy-port
Guess it'll be somewhere with reasonable access to deep water, not too far from the shipyard or a large industrial area for preference Perth, Brisbane, Newcastle areas look best - maybe Adelaide. Not Darwin or Melbourne
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Guess it'll be somewhere with reasonable access to deep water, not too far from the shipyard or a large industrial area for preference Perth, Brisbane, Newcastle areas look best - maybe Adelaide. Not Darwin or Melbourne
Darwin though, you may be incorrect. GPR was upgraded to facilitate construction out at GP.
Possible but N subs need a lot of support - almost every base is near a BIG support facility (eg Norfolk, Glasgow, Murmansk) - Guam is the only one that is really different - but it's a monster military base.
Evertonian
Originally Posted by Doors Off
Correct on Melbourne! The Democratik People’s Glorious Leader, His Emperor “Tali”Dan, of the Democratik Republik of the People’s Glorious CCCP State of Victoria - would not such Imperialist Activities.
All praise to the Great Leader!Remember the rumours surrounding French Island being scouted by the USN? I imagine it was just that because Westernport & Port Philip Bays would be easily choked. Ahh, those were the days!
Originally Posted by Doors Off
Correct on Melbourne! The Democratik People’s Glorious Leader, His Emperor “Tali”Dan, of the Democratik Republik of the People’s Glorious CCCP State of Victoria - would not such Imperialist Activities.
Darwin though, you may be incorrect. GPR was upgraded to facilitate construction out at GP.
Darwin though, you may be incorrect. GPR was upgraded to facilitate construction out at GP.
"It is the policy of the Royal Navy neither to confirm nor deny the carriage of nuclear weapons on board this ship"
Originally Posted by tartare
Wonder if they'll bump up activity at Momote?
The amount of stuff still left up there from WW2 is a sight to behold.
ADDED: Interesting: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-in...nded-navy-port
The amount of stuff still left up there from WW2 is a sight to behold.
ADDED: Interesting: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-in...nded-navy-port
In WW2 Australia sacrificed many troops with token defence of forward bases throughout the Indonesian and New Guinea archipelagos. I think defence planners know these problems still present in modern conflict in the Pacific. Lombrum may get a token upgrade- anything more and the US Navy has obviously decided it figures more in their war plans than a peacetime forward refuelling base.
Water worked at Windscale too. (once they turned the fans off). Windscale also reduces the size of the milk lake in the UK pre-EU entry.... had to wait another 30 years to have Cesium special milk in EUR (Windscales Heath Robinson filters let Po get into the grasslands, at least it has a short " 'arf lyfe" [Po 210: 138.376 days].
The operational advantages of a nuke boat are valid, but so are the issues that come with them, including having to work out whether to use English, Nuclear, or 'Merican, Nukular pronunciation. "Ze embarrassment would be unbearable"... The program cost plonked onto advanced non-nukes would increase the number of hulls to find swabbies to fill the bunks for, which helps with unemployment. The neat thing with boats is, even if you just hide them under the pier no one knows what the risk to their own plans are. That seemed to work for the Foxtrots that seem to routinely sink at the piers in parts of Asia, although if the bow is still above the low tide mark then it kind of negates the strategy.
Once pinged, the old Alfa/Akula would return a pong doppler on the second ping, and yup they do go, but then localization is reduced in importance, a flat-out Akula pretty much announces its presence. The latest boats are better, particularly with nozzles, but they still are going to be driving at modest speeds. (the fairwater work is much better now than before, but still, pushing 5000cu mtrs of water out of the way ends up with energy dumping into the oggin, at a square of the veeze, so silence still derives from caution. At least the anechoic coating tiles add to.... flow turbulence... huh? er, oops. wheres my spack filler and DP190.
My main concern with AUS nukes is just the fleet sizing, if we had a fleet of 16 boats, it would be a fashion statement. having a handful of what can only be described as capital ships is an option, just not what I would vote for. Of course, I would also like some refurbished F16s and even buy-back of the F/A18A/B's they still have a place. Better yet, buy a 10 score and 50 A10's, re-wing, and invite former marine drivers to come and spend time dunnunda at RAAF Bundaberg, RAAF Hamilton Island, and the satellite airport RAAF Airlie Beach, and RAAF Broome. Replace the 30 x 173 PGU-14/B ammo core with cane toads. Nothing says welcome like a GAU-8/A.Add chicken wire mesh over the rear of the blenders to stop getting fruitbat strikes on takeoff when overtaken by the bats.
While we are at it, naval surface vessels, (known as "targets") of capital value don't make much sense anymore. While not a fan of the LCS as they turned out, it was not because the concept was bad, the complexity added by the committees trying to make an "all things to all users" vessel didn't help, nor did missing out the point that ships need to be maintainable. Having to cut the boat in two to replace a poorly designed bearing is an "own goal". A low signature would seem to be a nice thing to have if you wish to avoid being a flaming datum. Our arsenal dunnunda is a carry-over of the 60's, and the technology and lethality of munitions make a rethink worthwhile. One man's capital ship is another's juicy target.
OH, year, the other great thing about the A10 is that afterward, the barrels can be used as flag poles. really strong flag poles.
The operational advantages of a nuke boat are valid, but so are the issues that come with them, including having to work out whether to use English, Nuclear, or 'Merican, Nukular pronunciation. "Ze embarrassment would be unbearable"... The program cost plonked onto advanced non-nukes would increase the number of hulls to find swabbies to fill the bunks for, which helps with unemployment. The neat thing with boats is, even if you just hide them under the pier no one knows what the risk to their own plans are. That seemed to work for the Foxtrots that seem to routinely sink at the piers in parts of Asia, although if the bow is still above the low tide mark then it kind of negates the strategy.
Once pinged, the old Alfa/Akula would return a pong doppler on the second ping, and yup they do go, but then localization is reduced in importance, a flat-out Akula pretty much announces its presence. The latest boats are better, particularly with nozzles, but they still are going to be driving at modest speeds. (the fairwater work is much better now than before, but still, pushing 5000cu mtrs of water out of the way ends up with energy dumping into the oggin, at a square of the veeze, so silence still derives from caution. At least the anechoic coating tiles add to.... flow turbulence... huh? er, oops. wheres my spack filler and DP190.
My main concern with AUS nukes is just the fleet sizing, if we had a fleet of 16 boats, it would be a fashion statement. having a handful of what can only be described as capital ships is an option, just not what I would vote for. Of course, I would also like some refurbished F16s and even buy-back of the F/A18A/B's they still have a place. Better yet, buy a 10 score and 50 A10's, re-wing, and invite former marine drivers to come and spend time dunnunda at RAAF Bundaberg, RAAF Hamilton Island, and the satellite airport RAAF Airlie Beach, and RAAF Broome. Replace the 30 x 173 PGU-14/B ammo core with cane toads. Nothing says welcome like a GAU-8/A.Add chicken wire mesh over the rear of the blenders to stop getting fruitbat strikes on takeoff when overtaken by the bats.
While we are at it, naval surface vessels, (known as "targets") of capital value don't make much sense anymore. While not a fan of the LCS as they turned out, it was not because the concept was bad, the complexity added by the committees trying to make an "all things to all users" vessel didn't help, nor did missing out the point that ships need to be maintainable. Having to cut the boat in two to replace a poorly designed bearing is an "own goal". A low signature would seem to be a nice thing to have if you wish to avoid being a flaming datum. Our arsenal dunnunda is a carry-over of the 60's, and the technology and lethality of munitions make a rethink worthwhile. One man's capital ship is another's juicy target.
OH, year, the other great thing about the A10 is that afterward, the barrels can be used as flag poles. really strong flag poles.
Originally Posted by tartare
For all those Australians whining about nuclear power not being safe - and nukular reactors sitting on docks in the middle of cities - there's an astonishing story buried in that submarine book.
HMS Valiant - in 1977 - under power when the Captain gets summoned back to the tunnel above the reactor compartment, and looks down through the thick window onto the reactor (a fascinating detail in itself).
He describes it as normally well lit and cathedral like - full of complex machinery - and radiation of course; completely sealed.
But in this case, the entire reactor compartment is full of seawater - due to a pipe leak - while the reactor is running!
They shut it down, drain the seawater - then restart it.
And it runs just fine - despite having being submerged in saltwater.
Testimony to the engineering.
HMS Valiant - in 1977 - under power when the Captain gets summoned back to the tunnel above the reactor compartment, and looks down through the thick window onto the reactor (a fascinating detail in itself).
He describes it as normally well lit and cathedral like - full of complex machinery - and radiation of course; completely sealed.
But in this case, the entire reactor compartment is full of seawater - due to a pipe leak - while the reactor is running!
They shut it down, drain the seawater - then restart it.
And it runs just fine - despite having being submerged in saltwater.
Testimony to the engineering.
RAAF asking about 24 C130J and 6 KC130 tankers.
War in the Pacific is going to require more airlift I guess. But why the tankers?
https://www.australiandefence.com.au...cules-for-raaf
War in the Pacific is going to require more airlift I guess. But why the tankers?
https://www.australiandefence.com.au...cules-for-raaf
I been saying they should buy the UK C-130's to suppliment the australian fleet, I was thinking specifically get some maffs for firefighting, but wonder if theres a option to get its a tanker for most of the year and if needed throw a maffs in it
Over all seems a bit weird, but will we need that many probe and drogue. Unless they are going retroactively refit the A's for probe you are down to Super hornets and growlers.
Over all seems a bit weird, but will we need that many probe and drogue. Unless they are going retroactively refit the A's for probe you are down to Super hornets and growlers.
I can only guess. We have also benched the 10 C-27j from the battle space. So that airlift and mission, has to be replaced somewhere too. Split between C-130j and CH-47? Perhaps they see a need for more probe refueling for specific Growler missions post 2030. Where the KC-30a isn't required for other assets. Or perhaps another probe platform will be coming? At this stage, the plan is to retire the FA-18f around 2030. That also may change?
Theres way more questions with no answers. Theres been chat for last 18 months the MRH-90 are on borrowed time, the SOF hate the taipan and have been pushing for little birds and pavehawks. Maybe a big buy of pavehawks to replace the a blackhawks that were supposed to be retired last month is on the cards and then these to refuel them.
Other thing I was thinking is maybe loyal wingman might be going probe and drogue and KC-130's might be more suitable for them in flight
Other thing I was thinking is maybe loyal wingman might be going probe and drogue and KC-130's might be more suitable for them in flight
You are right, we are guessing. 2025-27 should give a clearer picture. The C-130 tankers for future helo with probe is a possibility too. We will be working with USMC so if they get the V-280. That could be nice for us to get, too 
For UAV, I can't see the software being able to process a probe contact. It may be hard enough, to get it flying stable enough behind a tanker. For a boom operator to maintain contact.
For UAV, I can't see the software being able to process a probe contact. It may be hard enough, to get it flying stable enough behind a tanker. For a boom operator to maintain contact.
