AUKUS
osbourne in adelaide. but due to the size of the SSN, they bought up the neighboring land and will be building a bigger one of the SSN, they have a facility for collins maintainence but a bigger facility will be needed, the plan was originally for the attack class to built there but now the SSN will be done there
We built the Collins sub at Osbourne SA. As has been said there is an expansion. Our main issue as I see it was the brain drain. The original 'continuous build program' wasn't done. We stopped at 6 and the workforce dissipated.
Osbourne has a ... chequered record ... at construction over the years but its all there is. main problem has been more attractive jobs elsewhere in SA
I know quite a few people in SA - and one of the issues seems to be training people to do ANY industrial job these days. Once the Car and white goods factories closed down the idea of working with machinery seems to have got a very bad name locally
And the Australian Submarine Corporation incurred the famous quote by the Defence Minister at the time - "I wouldn't trust them to build a canoe". It was 8 years ago, but even so...
Defence Minister David Johnston
Defence Minister David Johnston
I understand that ASC has been restructured by a competent CEO and is now considered to be capable of building the future submarines - provided they can find, & train, sufficient staff. This is a problem affecting most companies in Western countries.
The following users liked this post:
Why I dont think the australian nuclear sub will have UK reactors
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ired-with-glue
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ired-with-glue
And they were only found when the heads dropped off for a second time......................
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
And they were only found when the heads dropped off for a second time......................
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/212179...ne-super-glue/
Still - not exactly a brilliant story .............
Bit more complex than that - found during an inspection as part of the work verification process.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/212179...ne-super-glue/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/212179...ne-super-glue/
This is right up there with the falsification of test results on steel used in the construction of USN submarines for about 20 years.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1954445.html
Evertonian
https://www.theage.com.au/world/euro...02-p5chbk.html
I wonder if the could lead to a combined force?
British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace says building Canberra’s fleet of nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS pact is likely to be a tri-nation project, raising expectations Australia, the United Kingdom and United States will jointly develop a new generation of boats.
yes - it'll be called the USN
and when will this "new generation" enter service?
and when will this "new generation" enter service?
It’s quite clear from both articles that the bolt heads that were supposedly glued on, we’re holding the insulation on to the coolant pipes and not the pressure envelope(flanges).
Still not good and calls in to question the general standards. But that’s Laggers for you!
Still not good and calls in to question the general standards. But that’s Laggers for you!
The following users liked this post:
Naïve questions - would it be technically feasible to build modules in different countries and then assemble them into a full submarine in another?
Would it be cost effective to do so - and allow an increase in output of yards in US, UK and a new yard in Australia?
EG (gross oversimplification) - the Yanks build the reactor part, the Brits build the back and the Aussies build the front (yes I know submarines are extraordinarily complex, highly integrated pieces of equipment).
Reactor and back are then shipped to Oz to be joined to front.
I suspect I know the answer.
Would it be cost effective to do so - and allow an increase in output of yards in US, UK and a new yard in Australia?
EG (gross oversimplification) - the Yanks build the reactor part, the Brits build the back and the Aussies build the front (yes I know submarines are extraordinarily complex, highly integrated pieces of equipment).
Reactor and back are then shipped to Oz to be joined to front.
I suspect I know the answer.
Naïve questions - would it be technically feasible to build modules in different countries and then assemble them into a full submarine in another
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...arine-program/
Theres no practical or technical reason you cant, its only economics / politics. As it stands today modules for ships are built in one location and shipped to another to be assembled. Even recently Austal was announced that they would building 2 different types of modules for virginia and a columbia submarines where they would be barged to either GDEB for final assembly
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...arine-program/
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...arine-program/
Thank you - my reason for asking was the use of the phrase "It really is, is a genuinely trilateral effort to see both the UK and the US provide Australia with a nuclear-powered submarine capability." by Marles. I wondered if they were looking at doing something like this.
Canberra and Adelaide LHD were built in spain, shipped to australia via heavy lift ship and then fitout was done locally. Its would be much easier to ship half a submarine
