AUKUS
8.46 The Review has undertaken detailed discussions in Australia and the United States in relation to the B-21 Raider as a potential capability option for Australia.
In light of our strategic circumstances and the approach to Defence strategy and capability development outlined in this Review, we do not consider the B-21 to
be a suitable option for consideration for acquisition.
In light of our strategic circumstances and the approach to Defence strategy and capability development outlined in this Review, we do not consider the B-21 to
be a suitable option for consideration for acquisition.
Evertonian
Bearing in mind that there's many, many hoops to jump & modifications etc, etc. Could the F-35B come into the equation as launch platforms off the LHD's?
Theres this video on it, generally well regarded
Personally if/when the spanish prove its practical, until then its a pipe dream and a waste of resources. Only real way I see australia getting in naval aviation would be buying a squadron of B and flying them of the british carriers and US Landing ships as a supporting force
The following users liked this post:
My understanding is that the internal configuration of the LHD’s is strongly biased towards supporting the amphibious operations and would need extensive modifications to support F-35B’s - much larger aviation fuel storage, weapons storage and lifts, strengthening & heat proofing the main deck, etc. It’s so extensive that it would almost certainly be cheaper to build another hull that is designed for fixed wing aviation and leave the 2 LHD’s with full amphibious capabilities.
Also, the F-35B has significantly less range than the other models so, it would have to be provided with tanker support to be able to conduct operations at a range that doesn’t put the ship into range of enemy forces - these ships have limited defensive capabilities. Overall, it would tie up a lot of resources which would be better utilised by sending in RAAF missile trucks (Super Hornets & P-8’s supported by F-35’s). The Ghost Bat will also be a cost effective force multiplier.
Also, the F-35B has significantly less range than the other models so, it would have to be provided with tanker support to be able to conduct operations at a range that doesn’t put the ship into range of enemy forces - these ships have limited defensive capabilities. Overall, it would tie up a lot of resources which would be better utilised by sending in RAAF missile trucks (Super Hornets & P-8’s supported by F-35’s). The Ghost Bat will also be a cost effective force multiplier.
Last edited by Going Boeing; 1st May 2023 at 22:10.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I have finally got out of teaching (on Australian naval ship design!) and had time to read the ANAO report on the Hunter Class frigate. A 🧵of few highlights and thoughts 1/…
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...460766721.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...460766721.html
I have finally got out of teaching (on Australian naval ship design!) and had time to read the ANAO report on the Hunter Class frigate. A 🧵of few highlights and thoughts 1/…
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...460766721.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...460766721.html
God Damn that was brutal, hunter class is dead I think. My money the Naval ship building will kill hunter and we will go either off the shelf with the Fremm / Constellation (copy and paste the constellation) or something in F100 / F5000 for a commonality with the Hobart Class AWD
Last edited by rattman; 10th May 2023 at 10:11.
It’s a very damming report but the development of the Hunter class is now so advanced that I can’t see it being abandoned for another option. Due to the necessity of getting the Anzac’s replacements built as quickly as possible, Hunter construction will have to continue but the number may be reduced due to cost.
The Type 26 design has a very quiet propulsion system which is a big driver of the high acquisition cost. This is why the Royal Navy is limiting the Type 26 to 8 ships and building 5 much cheaper Type 31’s (General Purpose frigates) to complete the replacement of their Type 23’s. This low noise level will make the Hunter class a superb ASW frigate (with substantial AAW capability) but also, the large hull gives a lot of flexibility for future growth or subsequent use for other roles. BAES has proposed an Air Warfare Destroyer variant with as many as 128 missile launchers - a very capable platform. The savings in support and logistics of having all the Tier 1 warships based on the same hull and propulsion system will have significant savings in support and logistics with improved availability.
The selection of this design was a cluster f**k but where we are now means that we have to proceed as fast as possible and make the most out of what looks like a very good design. The largest amount of the re-design work to integrate the CEAFAR 2 radar, SAAB 9LV & AEGIS combat system is very advanced and this configuration would also be used in subsequent versions.
The Type 26 design has a very quiet propulsion system which is a big driver of the high acquisition cost. This is why the Royal Navy is limiting the Type 26 to 8 ships and building 5 much cheaper Type 31’s (General Purpose frigates) to complete the replacement of their Type 23’s. This low noise level will make the Hunter class a superb ASW frigate (with substantial AAW capability) but also, the large hull gives a lot of flexibility for future growth or subsequent use for other roles. BAES has proposed an Air Warfare Destroyer variant with as many as 128 missile launchers - a very capable platform. The savings in support and logistics of having all the Tier 1 warships based on the same hull and propulsion system will have significant savings in support and logistics with improved availability.
The selection of this design was a cluster f**k but where we are now means that we have to proceed as fast as possible and make the most out of what looks like a very good design. The largest amount of the re-design work to integrate the CEAFAR 2 radar, SAAB 9LV & AEGIS combat system is very advanced and this configuration would also be used in subsequent versions.
Putting the words "BAES" and "significant savings" in the same paragraph must be an error..................... 
The following 2 users liked this post by tartare:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.defensenews.com/congress...-to-australia/
Pentagon seeks authority to transfer nuclear submarines to Australia
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Defense asked Congress to authorize the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia as part of the trilateral AUKUS agreement with the U.K.
Three legislative proposals, submitted on May 2 and first posted online Tuesday, would greenlight the sale of two Virginia-class submarines to Australia, permit the training of Australian nationals for submarine work and allow Canberra to invest in the U.S. submarine industrial base.
Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee’s sea power panel, praised the proposals in a statement to Defense News, saying “I look forward to working with all my colleagues in Congress to fulfill these goals.”
“The Department of Defense’s legislative proposals are the latest example of President [Joe] Biden’s commitment to fulfilling the AUKUS agreement,” said Courtney. “Importantly, the proposals spell out a clear path forward to facilitate the transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia while ensuring we have the necessary authorities to accept the Australian Government’s investments to enhance our submarine industrial base capacity and provide training for Australian personnel.”
AUKUS stipulates that Australia will buy at least three and as many as five Virginia-class submarines in the 2030s as part of phase two of the agreement, giving Congress more than a decade to authorize the sale. This year’s proposal, which the Pentagon hopes will become part of the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, asks that Congress approve just two of those submarines “without a deadline to consummate the transfers and without specifying the specific vessels to be transferred.”
The proposal argues that this “small amount of flexibility is necessary” since the transfers depend on Australian readiness to operate the submarines, which will involve developing Australia’s submarine industrial base through training and appropriate shipyard infrastructure.
To that end, a second legislative proposal would authorize U.S. defense service exports directly to Australia’s private sector in order to train its own submarine workers.
“This development must begin as soon as possible for Australia to become ready to own and safely operate these submarines in a manner that both maintains the highest non-proliferation standards and strengthens the global non-proliferation regime,” the Pentagon argues in the proposal.
Finally, the Pentagon is also asking Congress for permission to accept Australian payments to bolster the U.S. submarine industrial base. Australia has offered to make an undisclosed sum of investments in the U.S. submarine industrial base as part of AUKUS…….
Pentagon seeks authority to transfer nuclear submarines to Australia
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Defense asked Congress to authorize the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia as part of the trilateral AUKUS agreement with the U.K.
Three legislative proposals, submitted on May 2 and first posted online Tuesday, would greenlight the sale of two Virginia-class submarines to Australia, permit the training of Australian nationals for submarine work and allow Canberra to invest in the U.S. submarine industrial base.
Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee’s sea power panel, praised the proposals in a statement to Defense News, saying “I look forward to working with all my colleagues in Congress to fulfill these goals.”
“The Department of Defense’s legislative proposals are the latest example of President [Joe] Biden’s commitment to fulfilling the AUKUS agreement,” said Courtney. “Importantly, the proposals spell out a clear path forward to facilitate the transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia while ensuring we have the necessary authorities to accept the Australian Government’s investments to enhance our submarine industrial base capacity and provide training for Australian personnel.”
AUKUS stipulates that Australia will buy at least three and as many as five Virginia-class submarines in the 2030s as part of phase two of the agreement, giving Congress more than a decade to authorize the sale. This year’s proposal, which the Pentagon hopes will become part of the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, asks that Congress approve just two of those submarines “without a deadline to consummate the transfers and without specifying the specific vessels to be transferred.”
The proposal argues that this “small amount of flexibility is necessary” since the transfers depend on Australian readiness to operate the submarines, which will involve developing Australia’s submarine industrial base through training and appropriate shipyard infrastructure.
To that end, a second legislative proposal would authorize U.S. defense service exports directly to Australia’s private sector in order to train its own submarine workers.
“This development must begin as soon as possible for Australia to become ready to own and safely operate these submarines in a manner that both maintains the highest non-proliferation standards and strengthens the global non-proliferation regime,” the Pentagon argues in the proposal.
Finally, the Pentagon is also asking Congress for permission to accept Australian payments to bolster the U.S. submarine industrial base. Australia has offered to make an undisclosed sum of investments in the U.S. submarine industrial base as part of AUKUS…….
Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee’s sea power panel, praised the proposals in a statement to Defense News, saying “I look forward to working with all my colleagues in Congress to fulfill these goals.”
Now there's a big surprise..............
"U.S. Navy submarines are built by General Dynamics' Electric Boat Division (GD/EB) of Groton, CT, and Quonset Point, RI, and Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding (HII/NNS), of Newport News, VA."
Now there's a big surprise..............
"U.S. Navy submarines are built by General Dynamics' Electric Boat Division (GD/EB) of Groton, CT, and Quonset Point, RI, and Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding (HII/NNS), of Newport News, VA."
The following users liked this post:
There’s some discussion in this paper (from page 14 onwards) about the effect of the RAN acquiring 3-5 Virginia’s.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418
There’s some discussion in this paper (from page 14 onwards) about the effect of the RAN acquiring 3-5 Virginia’s.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418
That's a well argued paper with lots of info and a reasoned discussion of both sides of the argument from a US view - thanks!!
Hudson institute did a panel on AUKUS, Panel was Former prime mininister Scott Morrision and Boris Johnson and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
https://youtu.be/I2WuyL5xp5g
https://youtu.be/I2WuyL5xp5g
"Simply the Best!"
The following is from a well informed source on another forum - I didn’t expect the third boat to be a new build.
”Australian SSN Update:
Of the 3 submarines to be transferred from the US from 2032.
1st and 2nd will have at least 20 years remaining service life after transfer and will be transferred from the USN fleet.
Vessels to be transferred is under negotiation.
(As the Virginias have a 33 year service life, that means the transferred subs will have to have entered service from 2019 or later. So will be a Virginia III or IV.)
3rd Sub will not be transferred from USN but will be a new build straight from the shipyard. As the USN has transitioned to Block V production, Australia would have to specifically request an earlier Block if they did not want to take a Block V.
Source: Vice Admiral Mead
Senate Estimates 31/05/2023
Transcript not yet available on Senate Website.”
”Australian SSN Update:
Of the 3 submarines to be transferred from the US from 2032.
1st and 2nd will have at least 20 years remaining service life after transfer and will be transferred from the USN fleet.
Vessels to be transferred is under negotiation.
(As the Virginias have a 33 year service life, that means the transferred subs will have to have entered service from 2019 or later. So will be a Virginia III or IV.)
3rd Sub will not be transferred from USN but will be a new build straight from the shipyard. As the USN has transitioned to Block V production, Australia would have to specifically request an earlier Block if they did not want to take a Block V.
Source: Vice Admiral Mead
Senate Estimates 31/05/2023
Transcript not yet available on Senate Website.”
Guess it's to smooth the eventual retirement profile - you wouldn't want all 3 boats running out over say the same 5 years or so