AUKUS
Gnadenburg
agree with your comments on Singapore (a Claytons democracy?)
But ... they are "very" independent and, from admittedly old inside information (I knew someone who knew someone who ...... knew someone at the top levels of government - so very reliable !!)
Singapore are (at least used to be) paranoid about China claiming Singapore as part of their territory.
I was also told that their military usually used to go on high alert several times a year, mainly because of Malaysia (Mahathir at the time) and Indonesia (mainly Suharto), so they tended to be 'well drilled'. I don't know about since then.
agree with your comments on Singapore (a Claytons democracy?)
But ... they are "very" independent and, from admittedly old inside information (I knew someone who knew someone who ...... knew someone at the top levels of government - so very reliable !!)
Singapore are (at least used to be) paranoid about China claiming Singapore as part of their territory.
I was also told that their military usually used to go on high alert several times a year, mainly because of Malaysia (Mahathir at the time) and Indonesia (mainly Suharto), so they tended to be 'well drilled'. I don't know about since then.
"I really fail to see where Singapore could be trusted."
Jeez - if we can't trust Singapore who do we trust in Asia? Or anywhere else??
Jeez - if we can't trust Singapore who do we trust in Asia? Or anywhere else??
The context was clearly in terms of AUKUS like arrangements eg : technological transfers and weapons development. Singapore is walking a strategic tightrope between the US and China. It’s complicated and I doubt they would even want to be aligned as closely as an AUKUS type arrangement as it may jeopardise their desires for CCP treasure.
Singapore's main strategic issues are balancing between Malaysia and Indonesia - and they keep on reasonable terms with both
China is important economically but you won't find many tears in S'pore over the movement of a lot of trading from HK - and S'pore Security is rumoured to be top rate with a lot of Israeli input
From a military point of view they run a very capable green water navy - plus a first class Air Force. I'd agree that its very unlikely they'd want SSN's - they're surrounded by really shallow water for a start so any operations would be a long way from home
China is important economically but you won't find many tears in S'pore over the movement of a lot of trading from HK - and S'pore Security is rumoured to be top rate with a lot of Israeli input
From a military point of view they run a very capable green water navy - plus a first class Air Force. I'd agree that its very unlikely they'd want SSN's - they're surrounded by really shallow water for a start so any operations would be a long way from home
The founder of the company is Palmer Luckey who developed Oculus Rift, one of the first VR sets. This decision by the ADF mirrors the Ghost Bat/Loyal Wingman program. It’s a smaller agile company doing advanced developments rapidly compared to established defence contractors. Anduril are also responsible for the USAF Advanced Battle Management Systems. Pretty impressive company to partner with and one that should be able to develop a capable XL-AUV in a relatively short timeframe.
I suspect its dimensions will be limited to what can fit on a Collins class as they will be around for quite a while.
Navy Recognition Anduril RAN XL-AUV
I suspect its dimensions will be limited to what can fit on a Collins class as they will be around for quite a while.
Navy Recognition Anduril RAN XL-AUV
Last edited by Going Boeing; 10th May 2022 at 04:33.
Any initial thoughts from Australia on what the new Government's stance is on buying SSN's?
Evertonian
French showing their maturity I see. 
But the new Government were mostly supportive on these matters, doubt there’ll be any changes re Subs.
But the new Government were mostly supportive on these matters, doubt there’ll be any changes re Subs.
Openly, in the initial stages, it won’t change. Strategically, though our new PM and the Deputy are both proper “trade unionists”, they can’t afford to stray too far from the established norms.
There will be more pressure for it to be an onshore jobs program. Less chance of the first one or two being built overseas
Thanks folks.
I cant see there being any major changes to the scheme. Maybe some apologies to france and US on how shittly our previous government handled the a announcement originally. Funny thing is I have always considered the barracuda to be in the butter zone of what i consider is optimal tonnage a crew requirment for an australian sub. A barracuda with an HEU reactors is a good option for australia. Also been warming up to the concept of getting a KSS-III from south korea, building some conventional subs to replace the collins, would allow australia to get back the skills in sub building meanwhile the design can be fettled and converted in a nuclear sub. Yes it going to be longer with more displacement, but a lot of the same systems will be able to be used
Albanese was sworn in this morning australian time and that after noon hes on a jet to Japan to meet with Biden, Modi and Japanese PM. Its for the Quad, but can imagine AUKUS will be discussed between australian and US representitives
Albanese was sworn in this morning australian time and that after noon hes on a jet to Japan to meet with Biden, Modi and Japanese PM. Its for the Quad, but can imagine AUKUS will be discussed between australian and US representitives
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The problem being France only produces a LEU reactor, not HEU, bringing us back to the need to refuel every 5 years and being dependent on France for refuelling - which is not an acceptable risk.
If you want a sub with a reactor fuelled for its service life you need HEU, which leads you back to US/UK reactor design and supply - even if the rest of the sub is built in Australia.
If you want a sub with a reactor fuelled for its service life you need HEU, which leads you back to US/UK reactor design and supply - even if the rest of the sub is built in Australia.
HEU, LEU fuelled or whatever, the design of the reactor, electrical power and propulsion units is not independent of the design of the rest of the boat. It is a fallacy to think that you can easily 'nuclearise' an existing design. If you want a nuclear powered boat buy one that was designed as a nuclear powered boat. It will be cheaper and quicker than designing a new boat that happens to have some bits that look like another conventional boat.
Systems integration is hard work.
N
Systems integration is hard work.
N
