AUKUS
But this is all just spitballing atm, I was surprised we only had 12, so we would be almost quadrupling the fleet if we did
Back to topic........ in a post above Going Boeing shows a timeline with 8 SSN's - I can't see Australia managing to afford 8 - the UK will have taken 19 years to get 7 Astute's in service - the latest ones cost £ 1.5 Bn each
I had it explained to me by someone I trust, it originally came up when I ****ting on the french about the time the suffren took. He pointed out to me that both the UK and French long build times were sorta intentional. Both countries have been burned in previous generation by building them and 20 years later build the next one, meanwhile all the skills had atrophied. I dont think we are going to get 8, think its going to 6 nuclear and 6 conventional. But time will tell. Also note the cost of the astutes are actually going, astute actually came in massively overbudget and it was thanks to GDEB to save the program and made the boats cheaper
I had it explained to me by someone I trust, it originally came up when I ****ting on the french about the time the suffren took. He pointed out to me that both the UK and French long build times were sorta intentional. Both countries have been burned in previous generation by building them and 20 years later build the next one, meanwhile all the skills had atrophied. I dont think we are going to get 8, think its going to 6 nuclear and 6 conventional. But time will tell. Also note the cost of the astutes are actually going, astute actually came in massively overbudget and it was thanks to GDEB to save the program and made the boats cheaper
https://www.aspi.org.au/report/deliv...er-navy-faster
I don’t think the RAN could manage two different submarine types (6 nuclear and 6 conventional) as suggested by Rattman. This government appears to be willing to spend the money because they see a real threat (another reason to build the additional AWD’s) so I think they will buy at least 8 SSN’s. If there is a change of government at the upcoming election, the funding may be more restricted.
The UK government appears to be restricting their defence spending with early retirement of some naval vessels, reduction of the E7 order from 5 down to 3 (not a viable fleet for operations), insufficient P8’s, early retirement of C130J’s, no boom refuelling on the A330 MRTT Voyager aircraft despite having a number of types which use the boom, fitted for (but not with) designs on the Type 26 & 31 frigates, etc.
The latest report on the Royal Navy says that they need more escort ships & attack submarines as well as existing ships require a lot more offensive firepower.
”The fleet will continue to suffer from well-documented problems with several key assets for at least the next few years:
- Delays to crucial procurement programmes mean that old ships are becoming increasingly challenging to maintain and spend too long unavailable for operations.
- Even for newer ships maintenance projects take too long. At one point in July 2021 only one of six Type 45 destroyers was not undergoing maintenance: three vessels were in refit; one was in planned maintenance; and one was “experiencing technical issues” (in layman’s English, it broke down).
- The budget for operations and maintenance is tight and will likely lead to yet more ships sitting in port, failing to deter our increasingly emboldened adversaries.
- “When ships do get to sea they act like porcupines – well-defended herbivores with limited offensive capabilities”. What offensive capabilities these ships do have will be reduced even further in three years’ time when the Government retires the Harpoon anti-ship missile without a planned replacement.
- Three important vessels – RFA Argus, RFA Fort Victoria and HMS Scott – will also retire without replacements: the Navy will likely lose its current ability to provide medical care, replenish vessels at sea, and monitor the sea bed.
- The fleet is increasingly reliant on allies for many capabilities, with a limited scope to act independently, and the Government needs to do more at the political level to ensure this support will be provided when needed.
Last edited by Going Boeing; 14th Dec 2021 at 22:58.
I missed that 
AUKUS: A melding of forces and technology.
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...der-aukus-deal
Australia won’t lose its sovereignty under the Aukus deal, according to Joe Biden’s top Indo-Pacific adviser, who has sought to clarify his prediction of a “melding” of Australian, US and UK military forces.
AUKUS: A melding of forces and technology.
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...der-aukus-deal
Australia won’t lose its sovereignty under the Aukus deal, according to Joe Biden’s top Indo-Pacific adviser, who has sought to clarify his prediction of a “melding” of Australian, US and UK military forces.
"I think they will buy at least 8 SSN’s" -
that's going to be a BIG bill............. and a sitting target for the Australian opposition who will tell people the money would be better spent on Health Care- after all, that's what the Tory Govt. in the UK seems ot think.
that's going to be a BIG bill............. and a sitting target for the Australian opposition who will tell people the money would be better spent on Health Care- after all, that's what the Tory Govt. in the UK seems ot think.
"I think they will buy at least 8 SSN’s" -
that's going to be a BIG bill............. and a sitting target for the Australian opposition who will tell people the money would be better spent on Health Care- after all, that's what the Tory Govt. in the UK seems ot think.
that's going to be a BIG bill............. and a sitting target for the Australian opposition who will tell people the money would be better spent on Health Care- after all, that's what the Tory Govt. in the UK seems ot think.
Labor has three conditions for the support of nuclear-powered submarines, which we have sought assurance on. Firstly, that there be no requirement of a domestic civil nuclear industry. Secondly, that there be no acquisition of nuclear weapons. And, thirdly, that this agreement would be compatible with the non-proliferation treaty.
"AUKUS with its 8 SSN buy has bi-partisan support going right back to Sept."
They're politicians - they'll use whatever stick they can find to beat the other side - wait & see..................
They're politicians - they'll use whatever stick they can find to beat the other side - wait & see..................
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s a bargain based on Emmanuel’s quote of AU$90B for 12 SSK’s.
Personally, I don't like irrational fear mongering, fuelling partisan political campaigns in Australia. Such as the Defence Minister's recent press conference stating Chinese missiles can strike as far as Hobart. This is irrelevant. Australia's maritime interests are not. Our fuel supplies are just as vulnerable as the CCP's to a interdiction campaign through Indonesian choke points. SSN's offer relevance here. As would securing better national fuel reserves.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 8th Dec 2021 at 05:41.
I agree - SSN's make a lot of sense for Australia - but there is bill and it won't be small. And over the many years before the programme is bedded in and the boats are on patrol there will be several elections
I have little faith in the ability of any politicians of any country to put long-term over being elected
I have little faith in the ability of any politicians of any country to put long-term over being elected
Doesn't surprise me - particularly when you read about the sums the UK had to spend.
Not clear how that costing is arrived at and over what time - if we're talking $178bn incl. inflation up to the point that capability is introduced - then the sum is not that large.
Not clear how that costing is arrived at and over what time - if we're talking $178bn incl. inflation up to the point that capability is introduced - then the sum is not that large.
Just look at the K9/huntsman program that was just signed 30 k9's at 3 million each and 15 ammo haulers at about 1.5 million each, doesn't cover the 900 million program cost
Last edited by rattman; 14th Dec 2021 at 01:49.
ICCM are less difficult, as I think there currently no western nuclear armed versions, but a lot easier to stop, a lot less effective against hardened targets and not much of a deterrent.
N
Have long believed Australia needs a full nuclear deterrent.
Wish it wasn't the case - but the medium to long term outlook in this part of the world is potentially quite dark.
If I were making the decisions, I'd be ensuring that the new boats are fully capable of firing weapons with special payloads.
Numpty makes an interesting point though.
Nothing to stop` straya from basing some of them new hypersonic glide vehicle things up in the GAFA...
Wish it wasn't the case - but the medium to long term outlook in this part of the world is potentially quite dark.
If I were making the decisions, I'd be ensuring that the new boats are fully capable of firing weapons with special payloads.
Numpty makes an interesting point though.
Nothing to stop` straya from basing some of them new hypersonic glide vehicle things up in the GAFA...
The problem with Australia having a full nuclear deterrent is that it would only take 5 - 10 warheads coming the other way to fry most of the population.