AUKUS

[golder]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

"Astute" was completed in 2007 - so that's a +21 year programme for 7 boats. Gives you some idea of how hard it is to build up a fleet.

There was also a built-in timeline, to have continuality of build for the ship yard. Going into the next class. This was also suppose to happen for the Collins. Only they stopped all plans, the gov of the day had other ideas. Hence another reason of where we are today.

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by rattman

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. Subs are way less common and neither invincible or a illustrious was nuclear powered

Spent enough time on Invincible and Lusty to be perfectly familiar with their propulsion thanks.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/12...2470440053200/

It was carriage of buckets of sunshine that was the problem - or more precisely refusal to confirm or deny presence onboard.

[rattman]

Fremantle council declared they were nuclear free, but it was completely ignored by everyone as councils have zero authority over ports its generally state, sometimes federal. Australia has never been nuclear free, labor went to an election in the mid 80's with a nuclear free policy and lost. I remember in the 90's 3 nuclear carriers all anchored off freemantle, the freemantle port is unsuitable for nuclear carriers so they anchor out to see and crew get ferried in

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/12...2470440053200/


Hmm factually wrong, considering Andrew Peacock was head of the liberal party, seems factually wrong, seems a mish mash of errors. Paragraph its banned, paragraph its docked in sydney fixting the propeller shaft

Ahhh figured out. Berthing/anchoring in australia with nuclear weapons was fine, as it was in the sea. Going into a drydock was considered on australian soil because its no longer floating. Nuclear weapons are banned on australian soil because of the poms. But weapons or propulsion is fine as long they as they are floating. The issue was that they needed deammunition the ship while be worked in dry dock, they refused

[Going Boeing]

The PR efforts have started, there will be a lot more of this.

PR video supporting RAN acquisition of nuclear powered submarines

[tartare]

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.

[Going Boeing]

Originally Posted by tartare

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.

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.

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by Going Boeing

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.

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.

[megan]

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

Remember orbiting the USS Enterprise anchored in Hobart opposite the casino November 1976, the first US ship to pay a visit to the port, flight school roommate an A-6 driver on board.

[Going Boeing]

Originally Posted by etudiant

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.

My understanding is that the military planners believe that the best use of the available defence funds is to plan to strike the enemy before they land anywhere along our vast coastline &, if they do manage to establish a beachhead, then it would be important to disrupt their supply lines. For many years, the ADF was relying on submarines and Harpoon carrying air assets to provide this capability. Now that Harpoon is near the end of its service life, more capable missiles such as LRASM & NSM/JSM are planned to become the means to deny access via maritime approaches. A potential enemy would be aware of this structure and would do their best to protect their supporting sea lines of communication thus, having stand-off weapons and/or stealth capability is necessary. The F-35 would perform this role well (within its range) but B-21's would be effective at much greater ranges with larger payloads so it would be a much stronger deterent.

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.

[Buster Hyman]

Originally Posted by Going Boeing

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.

Indeed, and integrated with our allies. Especially our mate with the big stick!

[rattman]

Defence minister has opened the door on australia getting B-21's

https://australianaviation.com.au/20...raider-bomber/

[Buster Hyman]

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!

[fdr]

Everyone loves a nukulaar boat. They are so.... well.....

• expensive as a weapons system;
• life limited by reactor age and fatigue;
• so much easier to track than an SSK;

OTOH, they have

• excellent global reach (both time on mission and range) ;
• speed to vacate a datum;
• kerb appeal.

So we are proposing spending multi buckets of pubic purse to get... an ornament?

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 target. 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.

[ChrisJ800]

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.

[Gnadenburg]

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.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Gnadenburg

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.

The B-21 needs more than that, it needs to be operating from bases that have absolute security from prying eyes, and without a presence above ground to be targeted. even as a conventional-only munitions system, they are a strategic threat to anyone that may be within the range, which is more or less everyone.

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.

[Gnadenburg]

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.

[Asturias56]

"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?

[HK144]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

"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?

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.

[rattman]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

The COST!!! Who is going to pay for that? The RN struggles to equip a carrier AND run SSN's

I think we should buy some B's and operate them off the UK carriers in the same way that the Marines do, or operate them off USN flat tops. Included in this would appropriate technical and deck crew, that way keeping a nucleus of a carrier qualified pilot and deck crew just in case