AUKUS
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 151
From: A better place.
Interesting:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/se...-to-australia/
A few voices `stateside already saying it will never happen - too much bomber for the buck and designed primarily for special weapons.
But then again - people who supposedly know said we'd never buy nuclear boats.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/se...-to-australia/
A few voices `stateside already saying it will never happen - too much bomber for the buck and designed primarily for special weapons.
But then again - people who supposedly know said we'd never buy nuclear boats.
Last edited by tartare; 23rd August 2022 at 09:44.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
Interesting:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/se...-to-australia/
A few voices `stateside already saying it will never happen - too much bomber for the buck and designed primarily for special weapons.
But then again - people who supposedly know said we'd never buy nuclear boats.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/se...-to-australia/
A few voices `stateside already saying it will never happen - too much bomber for the buck and designed primarily for special weapons.
But then again - people who supposedly know said we'd never buy nuclear boats.
A squadron of B21’s would be a similar cost as a carrier but would have a lot more flexibility wrt multiple locations as well as having lower manning requirements.
If tensions keep escalating, I can see the government finding the money to buy B-21’s. The recent lengthy operation of B2’s out of Amberley has given the RAAF good insight into the operation of a similar strategic asset.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,358
Likes: 3
From: NEW YORK
My read of the recent acceleration of orders for long range missiles (JASSM-ER & LRASM) is a way of substituting for the lack of carrier based aviation. For the RAN to build carrier capability would be a very lengthy (& expensive) process whereas long range missiles deployed on current assets gives the ADF similar capability in a much shorter timeframe. A squadron of B21’s would add significantly to this and would totally make a naval carrier redundant for Australian defence needs.
A squadron of B21’s would be a similar cost as a carrier but would have a lot more flexibility wrt multiple locations as well as having lower manning requirements.
If tensions keep escalating, I can see the government finding the money to buy B-21’s. The recent lengthy operation of B2’s out of Amberley has given the RAAF good insight into the operation of a similar strategic asset.
A squadron of B21’s would be a similar cost as a carrier but would have a lot more flexibility wrt multiple locations as well as having lower manning requirements.
If tensions keep escalating, I can see the government finding the money to buy B-21’s. The recent lengthy operation of B2’s out of Amberley has given the RAAF good insight into the operation of a similar strategic asset.
A single digit number of nuclear subs or a double digit number of B-21s will soak up all funds available, leaving at most the dregs for territorial defense or anything else.
It seems a mismatch, so any explanation would be appreciated.
Joined: Mar 2005
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 6,563
Likes: 953
From: Aus
Nulcear ships have never been banned from australia. You might be thinking of NZ but australia pretty much continuously gets visted by nuclear powered aircraft carriers
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
Recognizing that Australia's military have responsibility for an enormous area, do any of the proposed systems make sense?
A single digit number of nuclear subs or a double digit number of B-21s will soak up all funds available, leaving at most the dregs for territorial defense or anything else.
It seems a mismatch, so any explanation would be appreciated.
A single digit number of nuclear subs or a double digit number of B-21s will soak up all funds available, leaving at most the dregs for territorial defense or anything else.
It seems a mismatch, so any explanation would be appreciated.
The land side of the ADF may not be getting as big a slice of the defence budget but, what they are getting is a high quality & highly mobile capability. With relatively small numbers in our Army, they have to be able to respond quickly to counter any threat using the RAN's amphibious capability and RAAF transport aircraft. There has been significant improvement in these areas in the last 15 years.
I look at the ADF as an integrated force and it is performing much better now than it did 30-40 years ago when there was significant inter-service rivalry.
Last edited by Going Boeing; 24th August 2022 at 11:29.
Evertonian
Joined: May 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 13,470
Likes: 278
From: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
Defence minister has opened the door on australia getting B-21's
https://australianaviation.com.au/20...raider-bomber/
https://australianaviation.com.au/20...raider-bomber/
Evertonian
Joined: May 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 13,470
Likes: 278
From: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Considering that Indonesia is having a 'tanty' with regard to the Nuclear Subs, I can only imagine how excited they'll be if we roll out B-21's!
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,087
Likes: 4,429
From: 3rd Rock, #29B
Everyone loves a nukulaar boat. They are so.... well.....
Submarines are a force multiplier in any form, but numbers count. Any sub can have a bad day, by accident or by design, I would prefer to see a single casualty not knocking out the national capability. ( I prefer those that don't hurt people either, having been onboard a sub that blew a raw water feed in the AMS at 400', subs get busy fast, and without warning).
Over the service life, the nukular boat is going to run around 3 to 4 or more in cost per boat over a conventional SSK. The task of the submarine is to interdict by implied or actual threat as a prime capability, and to provide ISR and SOF support as needed, while giving a screening to friendly naval forces from... other boats. I'm a generation out of the current boats, but follow them nevertheless, including having worked on some design items.
The USA and the UK can do well to have interoperable technologies for C3I, and weapon systems, and gain the benefit of a large SSK fleet operated by a dedicated group. Submariners are different, really, really really different. In the colonies, in the bad old days, politely, mufti was the dress of the day, and occasionally, the dress of the day was the "dress" of the day. The spirit of the sub fleet is different. The size of the RAN fleet has needed a major ramp up from what it has, and getting the oddities that go into subs in numbers is a challenge, but at least they aren't dry. AUS is a maritime nation, a fact that the successive govt seem to have been remarkably ill informed on. It is time that the RAN advocated what they need for both surface, literal and blue water, and sub surface capability.
AIP systems still provide a capability that is cost effective, durable and has unique capability that the UK still retains in small parts, and that has been lost to the USN.
For my money, go with AIP, a goodly size boat with extensive munitions flexibility, expand the numbers, for the same money of the project, and review the latest FFG proposals, as they appear to be staggeringly expensive for limited capability, being just wrong sized. Today, the bigness of the flag that can be carried is not a major factor except on parades, what is needed is capable weapon systems, an adequate range, good sea keeping, and modest direct and indirect costs. Overall, having a fleet of 4 or 5 surface skimmers is not a fleet, it is a bathtub distraction.
RAN has had mixed history with the support ships, but there too, the problem of having 3 subs, 4 FFGs, and 1 fleet oiler/support ship is, that the wheels come off with one bang on the side of the supporttarget. Ship. HMAS HIT ME.... A maritime nation needs to be able to protect its borders. That takes surface, sub surface and air assets to be done effectively. Right now, the UK and the ADF are lean on ASW/surface strike capability, and that leads back to maybe the RQ systems and even the B21 start to make a sort of sense. The B21 is effectively a capital asset, it's a brave OOD that sets out a frag for a B21 to go save the neck of the CPL and LT that are in deep doo doo in the land of far far away....
Notwithstanding that the most recent tiffs that the ADF have had were characterised as being..... well..... desert, and not an obvious location for using subs, frigates or carriers etc.... the one thing that Ukraine has reminded all is that what you see is what you get, conflict will come along at its own sweet inappropriate time, and whatever is in the tool kit at that time is what gets to be used.
- expensive as a weapons system;
- life limited by reactor age and fatigue;
- so much easier to track than an SSK;
- excellent global reach (both time on mission and range) ;
- speed to vacate a datum;
- kerb appeal.
Submarines are a force multiplier in any form, but numbers count. Any sub can have a bad day, by accident or by design, I would prefer to see a single casualty not knocking out the national capability. ( I prefer those that don't hurt people either, having been onboard a sub that blew a raw water feed in the AMS at 400', subs get busy fast, and without warning).
Over the service life, the nukular boat is going to run around 3 to 4 or more in cost per boat over a conventional SSK. The task of the submarine is to interdict by implied or actual threat as a prime capability, and to provide ISR and SOF support as needed, while giving a screening to friendly naval forces from... other boats. I'm a generation out of the current boats, but follow them nevertheless, including having worked on some design items.
The USA and the UK can do well to have interoperable technologies for C3I, and weapon systems, and gain the benefit of a large SSK fleet operated by a dedicated group. Submariners are different, really, really really different. In the colonies, in the bad old days, politely, mufti was the dress of the day, and occasionally, the dress of the day was the "dress" of the day. The spirit of the sub fleet is different. The size of the RAN fleet has needed a major ramp up from what it has, and getting the oddities that go into subs in numbers is a challenge, but at least they aren't dry. AUS is a maritime nation, a fact that the successive govt seem to have been remarkably ill informed on. It is time that the RAN advocated what they need for both surface, literal and blue water, and sub surface capability.
AIP systems still provide a capability that is cost effective, durable and has unique capability that the UK still retains in small parts, and that has been lost to the USN.
For my money, go with AIP, a goodly size boat with extensive munitions flexibility, expand the numbers, for the same money of the project, and review the latest FFG proposals, as they appear to be staggeringly expensive for limited capability, being just wrong sized. Today, the bigness of the flag that can be carried is not a major factor except on parades, what is needed is capable weapon systems, an adequate range, good sea keeping, and modest direct and indirect costs. Overall, having a fleet of 4 or 5 surface skimmers is not a fleet, it is a bathtub distraction.
RAN has had mixed history with the support ships, but there too, the problem of having 3 subs, 4 FFGs, and 1 fleet oiler/support ship is, that the wheels come off with one bang on the side of the support
Notwithstanding that the most recent tiffs that the ADF have had were characterised as being..... well..... desert, and not an obvious location for using subs, frigates or carriers etc.... the one thing that Ukraine has reminded all is that what you see is what you get, conflict will come along at its own sweet inappropriate time, and whatever is in the tool kit at that time is what gets to be used.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 367
Likes: 3
From: Philippines
We need F35B's for our Canberra class 'aircraft carriers' . Not sure we have the money for B21's but for sure we should have some permanently on shore as part of joint USAF bases like the UK does.
Joined: Jun 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 2,238
Likes: 218
From: Eden Valley
If we buy B21 Raiders let’s hope they don’t squish them up together on the tarmac with all the other assets at Amberley and Williamtown. The ADF must start seriously considering the hardening and air defence of the parade ground East Coast bases which now sit frontline. Something like a B21 acquisition, however unlikely it seems, may even require an inland basing strategy or regular dispersal.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,087
Likes: 4,429
From: 3rd Rock, #29B
If we buy B21 Raiders let’s hope they don’t squish them up together on the tarmac with all the other assets at Amberley and Williamtown. The ADF must start seriously considering the hardening and air defence of the parade ground East Coast bases which now sit frontline. Something like a B21 acquisition, however unlikely it seems, may even require an inland basing strategy or regular dispersal.
A B-21 that is known to exist and whose location is unknown is a pretty good way to add some pause before someone makes a rash decision. Same with das boots, and with all stealth aircraft. It is lunacy to have the Gen 5 aircraft on parade anywhere, they need to be distributed widely in effective cell-sized detachments, and in hardened low-profile structures. That isn't just AUS, that is all locations of NATO as well. IMHO. The B-21, F-35, F-22 and all subs are deterrents, that are best to have fleet size, location and readiness unknown.
Joined: Jun 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 2,238
Likes: 218
From: Eden Valley
That’s what I was clearly alluding to with “inland bases”. An airbase in the outback would provide better security not only against missile launching submarines, but also saboteurs with modern means such as drones. Woomera is an obvious example, though surprisingly may be too close to the coast if the CCP submarine threat is considerable enough. The investment in additional bases would be a massive addition to the actual cost of these bombers. Consideration of USAF investment in such bases and joint force operations would probably be necessary. Woomera & Alice Springs possible choices along with a further expansion of Tindal.
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,245
Likes: 1,657
From: Ferrara
"We need F35B's for our Canberra class 'aircraft carriers' ."
The COST!!! Who is going to pay for that? The RN struggles to equip a carrier AND run SSN's
As for B-21's - the USA never sold any F22's - do you think they'll sell their absolute top of the line, state of the art kit to anyone?
The COST!!! Who is going to pay for that? The RN struggles to equip a carrier AND run SSN's
As for B-21's - the USA never sold any F22's - do you think they'll sell their absolute top of the line, state of the art kit to anyone?
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 41
Likes: 3
From: Canberra
"We need F35B's for our Canberra class 'aircraft carriers' ."
The COST!!! Who is going to pay for that? The RN struggles to equip a carrier AND run SSN's
As for B-21's - the USA never sold any F22's - do you think they'll sell their absolute top of the line, state of the art kit to anyone?
The COST!!! Who is going to pay for that? The RN struggles to equip a carrier AND run SSN's
As for B-21's - the USA never sold any F22's - do you think they'll sell their absolute top of the line, state of the art kit to anyone?
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
"We need F35B's for our Canberra class 'aircraft carriers' ."
The COST!!! Who is going to pay for that? The RN struggles to equip a carrier AND run SSN's
As for B-21's - the USA never sold any F22's - do you think they'll sell their absolute top of the line, state of the art kit to anyone?
The COST!!! Who is going to pay for that? The RN struggles to equip a carrier AND run SSN's
As for B-21's - the USA never sold any F22's - do you think they'll sell their absolute top of the line, state of the art kit to anyone?
The RAN & BAE have circled the wagons to keep the focus on construction of the Hunter class and ignore the unsolicited offer from Navantia to quickly build 3 more Air Warfare Destroyers. Good to see that integration of the CEAFAR 2 radar with the AEGIS combat system is progressing well.
Hunter Class construction to start earlier
First Hunter class prototype block section (Block 16, 141 tonnes)
Last edited by Going Boeing; 30th August 2022 at 20:54.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 151
From: A better place.
You are right, they don't sell their absolute state of the art technology to anyone; however, given our access to Nuclear propulsion technology along with the UK, we perhaps are not 'anyone' and if the need is identified, it may be achievable. Times have certainly changed since the F22 era.
Note this also:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...31-p5be8p.html
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,637
Likes: 7,338
From: Peripatetic
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...subs-dd60qm793
Australians to train in UK nuclear subs
Submariners from Australia will be allowed to train inside Britain’s nuclear-powered submarines and access sensitive technology that has been kept secret from foreign nations for decades, it can be revealed.….
Under the plans being discussed by British and Australian ministers today, naval officers would be allowed to see nuclear engineering at work for the first time.… A Royal Navy source said: “We protect UK technology very closely. This a first-time agreement where we can give Australians access to that. It’s a really big gift.”…
Richard Marles, Australia’s deputy prime minister and defence minister will join Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, in the northwest of England today to attend the commissioning ceremony for HMS Anson, the fifth of seven new Astute-class attack submarines, and to discuss co-operation between their nations…..
The training is likely to take place on the UK’s £1.4 billion Astute-class nuclear-powered submarines, rather than the Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines because they have the newest reactor technology. Some of the training could be restricted to four months but other courses could last several years.
The source said that Australian submariners could even potentially embed with the Royal Navy on its submarines. It is understood that no extra security vetting will be deemed necessary.
Marles said that his government had not yet decided which nuclear- powered submarines — British or American — were best to replace Australia’s ageing conventional submarine fleet. He said he was planning to announce the choice early next year.
Australians to train in UK nuclear subs
Submariners from Australia will be allowed to train inside Britain’s nuclear-powered submarines and access sensitive technology that has been kept secret from foreign nations for decades, it can be revealed.….
Under the plans being discussed by British and Australian ministers today, naval officers would be allowed to see nuclear engineering at work for the first time.… A Royal Navy source said: “We protect UK technology very closely. This a first-time agreement where we can give Australians access to that. It’s a really big gift.”…
Richard Marles, Australia’s deputy prime minister and defence minister will join Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, in the northwest of England today to attend the commissioning ceremony for HMS Anson, the fifth of seven new Astute-class attack submarines, and to discuss co-operation between their nations…..
The training is likely to take place on the UK’s £1.4 billion Astute-class nuclear-powered submarines, rather than the Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines because they have the newest reactor technology. Some of the training could be restricted to four months but other courses could last several years.
The source said that Australian submariners could even potentially embed with the Royal Navy on its submarines. It is understood that no extra security vetting will be deemed necessary.
Marles said that his government had not yet decided which nuclear- powered submarines — British or American — were best to replace Australia’s ageing conventional submarine fleet. He said he was planning to announce the choice early next year.
