|
https://www.defensenews.com/global/a...ine-ambitions/
Australia details its nuclear-submarine ambitions MELBOURNE, Australia – The Australian government has established a Future Nuclear Submarine Task Force which will work with U.K. and U.S. counterparts over the next twelve to eighteen months to determine the best way to acquire the boats. While a specific type of nuclear submarine is yet to be determined, likely candidates would appear to be either Britain’s Astute-class attack submarine or the U.S. Virginia-class vessel. Construction is slated to take place locally at Osborne in South Australia….. A decision on the final number of new submarines is expected to be made by Canberra during the upcoming analysis phase.…. The decision is understood to have been brought about by the deteriorating security environment and rapidly evolving military technologies in the Indo-Pacific region, and it is enabled by new technology which allows Australia to build nuclear-powered boats that do not require a supporting civil nuclear industry. Australia has spent around $2.4 billion (US$1.76 billion) on the Attack-class design so far, but the additional cost of terminating the current contract is yet to be negotiated. The projected cost of the new future nuclear submarine has also yet to be determined or announced….. The change of heart is likely to mean the Royal Australian Navy’s Collins-class submarines will now remain in service, in diminishing numbers, until the late 2040s. The six Collins boats will cycle through a further Full Cycle Docking (FSD) activity and Life of Type Extension (LOTE) program to ensure their effectiveness until withdrawal. The scope of the LOTE upgrade has not been made public, but an announcement by South Australian Premier Steven Marshal Thursday revealed the work will also be done at Osborne. |
AUKUS is AWKWARD but better then U-SUK-A.
|
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-...ench-sub-deal/
Why Australia wanted out of its French submarine deal |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 11112221)
As a choice I think it's the right one - the RAN need long range and endurance - not something you get with a diesel.
While I can understand the Oz decision, our role doesn't exactly make sense. As Theresa May noted in Parliament yesterday, would we really contemplate going to war with China over Taiwan or anywhere else within that neck of the woods? |
All this shows as ever is that China, its leaders unencumbered by the need to win a election every 4-5 years, thinks much longer term than any Western country. Why ever start a messy war when you can just gradually buy the bits of the world that you want......
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 11112412)
There seems to be a real worry in Europe, not least in France, that this is the UK turning its eyes, and it’s military, to the Pacific - and realising how much they need the UK strategically. Not sure if the joint declaration on AUKUS being so close to this meeting was a coincidence or deliberate.
Might have been more appropriate in the EU army thread - but also fits here. Back in the day the UK, along with the USA, was involved in not only NATO but also CENTO and SEATO. The latter two withered on the vine. One wonders what the rise of AUKUS will mean for the former as the focus shifts back to the Pacific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southe...y_Organization https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...h-eu-rp9c05bnl Dutch leader Mark Rutte will invite Britain to join deal with EU Boris Johnson will be offered a pact with the European Union on defence and security co-operation today during a meeting in Downing Street with Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister….. “Afghanistan is a catalyst for further discussion on European defence co-operation, preferably including the UK,” a diplomatic source said. “Since Brexit, not enough European leaders have been in touch with Johnson. It is important to look at the geopolitics without being divided and there is a need to work with the UK.” France and Germany support the initiative and EU sources have suggested that Downing Street is more receptive to talks after British tensions arose with President Biden…… Rutte will make the offer despite French anger over a security pact between Australia, the US and Britain. The EU regards the issue as primarily a trade dispute over Australia’s decision to drop a submarine contract with France rather than a strategic question.….. Dutch, French and other European governments back greater co-operation with Britain to overcome European dependency on the US for airlifts, evacuation of nationals and emergency humanitarian assistance. Doing a deal with the UK is integral to European plans to develop a rapid reaction force to intervene independently of the US to ensure aid is delivered and evacuations carried out in a crisis…… The EU yesterday expressed “regret” that neither the Americans nor the British had consulted European capitals over the new alliance with Australia to counter China but it played down the significance of the row. Borrell [the EU’s foreign affairs chief] said: “I understand the extent to which the French government must be disappointed. We regret not being informed.” He said that the EU foreign ministers would discuss the agreement and the French would call for European navies to increase their military presence in the region. “EU foreign and defence ministers will be pressing for an increase of our presence in the Indo-Pacific and enhanced defence of our interests in the region,” Borrell said. “I am not saying we should send a European fleet in but we should have vessels there.” Politically this seems timely for the UK, especially in the light of recent events. It strikes me that it represents an opportunity and the UK could demonstrate its post-Brexit European bona fides by responding positively to it. |
While I can understand the Oz decision, our role doesn't exactly make sense. As Theresa May noted in Parliament yesterday, would we really contemplate going to war with China over Taiwan or anywhere else within that neck of the woods? Australia stepped into support the UK in Europe during two wars, I would think being prepared to do the same thing if heads ever come to a head in their region would find public support. |
You should bear in mind that switching to a French SSN gives you a sub that requires refuelling every 10 years using shoreside infrastructure Australia does not have. An Astute with a Core H reactor is fuelled for life, thus cheaper to run and maintain and arguably more capable and can be integrated with US kit. Its a sensible move IMHO
|
To follow on from that. and from the comments I have seen concerning the decision..,
The French haven’t yet finished commissioning their first new SSN for 30 years (the Suffren), which is only displaces 5K tons compared to the Astute class at 7.5K, and hence can carry only a total of 18 torpedo/Mx (French models only). Not a lot of firepower if you have to cross an ocean to rearm. Not sure if the size is a result of reactor output, but it has also led to far more automation with a crew of only 65, even at that complement it can only carry enough food and other consumable for a maximum of 70 days as opposed to around 90 for the Astute. With comments raised about rotation in combat and fatigue on long patrols. Again something not optimum for Pacific oceanic distances. In short, once deciding to go nuclear, there would have been a lot of risk in Oz opting for a French boat built for for Med and Atlantic littoral Ops for the Pacific theatre. One thing I discovered when researching Astute vs Virginia class subs, which surprised me was the following. ”The US Virginia-class SSN has a S9G reactor of about 150 MW driving a 30 MW pump-jet propulsion system built by BAE Systems (originally for the Royal Navy).” https://www.navaltoday.com/2014/02/2...opulsors-deal/ p.s. The Virginia class S9G reactor doesn’t need refuelling for it’s planned lifetime, as with the PWR2 in the Swiftsure and Astute subs - but again it would then depend on Congress approving export of nuclear material. |
Originally Posted by Navaleye
(Post 11112501)
You should bear in mind that switching to a French SSN gives you a sub that requires refuelling every 10 years using shoreside infrastructure Australia does not have. An Astute with a Core H reactor is fuelled for life, thus cheaper to run and maintain and arguably more capable and can be integrated with US kit. Its a sensible move IMHO
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 11112518)
One thing I discovered when researching Astute vs Virginia class subs, which surprised me was the following.
”The US Virginia-class SSN has a S9G reactor of about 150 MW driving a 30 MW pump-jet propulsion system built by BAE Systems (originally for the Royal Navy).” https://www.navaltoday.com/2014/02/2...opulsors-deal/ |
Originally Posted by Frostchamber
(Post 11112459)
Politically this seems timely for the UK, especially in the light of recent events. It strikes me that it represents an opportunity and the UK could demonstrate its post-Brexit European bona fides by responding positively to it.
|
ORAC's #92 resonates with me.
|
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown
(Post 11112591)
I sincerely hope the answer is no. The UK’s support for European defence and security is through its full contribution to NATO - something most EU states signally fail to do. If they want a separate RRF they should fund it themselves.
That area is more US sphere of interrest. (And the UK has obviously also made it hers) Giving Australia nuclear subs is also dragging them into a conflict (with China) they would have a hard time to reach using "normal" boats.... kind of "I scratch your bag.....". |
Originally Posted by andytug
(Post 11112456)
All this shows as ever is that China, its leaders unencumbered by the need to win a election every 4-5 years, thinks much longer term than any Western country. Why ever start a messy war when you can just gradually buy the bits of the world that you want......
I am amused that most of the posts here are about the hardware - it is the 'software' of the Diplomatic failure that is far more important as it is the route that could lead to needing the hardware. Across the last 30+ years, China has acheived all it needed without firing too many bullets. They own vast tracts of Africa and have many others under their thumb. I do not expect politicians to remember lessons from over 100 years ago (Afghanistan) but the AUKUS announcement tells us that the politicians have forgotten the lessons of the last 20 years. Since 1950, PRC has made it's view of Taiwan very clear - and now UK, USA, Aus have ignored modern history. If you do not like what China does to it's people, then do not trade with them! Move your manufacturing back home but, to try and have cheap manufacturing - whilst antagonising your trading partner? Such stupidity. The American M.I.C. blends too well with the old colonial view of gunships. The past 18 months have shown us how important an integrated, collaborative world is. This is a colosal mistake all round. |
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown
(Post 11112591)
I sincerely hope the answer is no. The UK’s support for European defence and security is through its full contribution to NATO - something most EU states signally fail to do. If they want a separate RRF they should fund it themselves.
Normally I'd tend to agree, but we are living in interesting times (which, for good or ill, we have just helped to make more interesting still) and I think the balance of considerations has shifted in a way that such a traditional binary approach isn't necessarily the smart play right now. What we have here are fellow European nations beating a path to the UK's door to tell us that they both want and need us to be part of their undertaking. That's quite significant and not unhelpful from a UK viewpoint, bearing in mind that there are other areas where the UK rather wants to be part of the European setup, and getting their agreement to that hasn't always been straightforward. Incidentally I suspect it's no coincidence that they have chosen the Dutch to pitch it to us, unless the Dutch have chosen themselves. More surprising just now would have been a pitch by the French. I suspect your view will prevail and it's one I entirely understand - the NATO point is an important one. But there are ways round things, our involvement could be couched around with statements about NATO primacy etc, UK assets temporarily attach themselves to EU efforts in the Med, the western Indian Ocean etc when it suits, and this needn't be too much different. Having the EU saying they want us along warrants a bit of magnanimity I think and it does no harm to take an opportunity to visibly underline our credentials as Europeans at this particular juncture. |
HMG has awarded BWOS and RR £85m for initial studies for the SSNR project replacing the Astute class. Coincidence?
|
"If you want range and endurance, why not develop an unmanned system? They could also go a lot deeper than a manned sub."
true but people want people out there in difficult situations - you can't communicate easily with anything submerged so you are dependent on people on board - think the "Belgrano" - would you be happy to leave that to AI? |
"They own vast tracts of Africa and have many others under their thumb."
legally yes - but since when has that counted for much in places like Africa? If the local despot says "kick the Chinese out" then out they go - the Russians found that out in Egypt way back |
Originally Posted by Navaleye
(Post 11112671)
HMG has awarded BWOS and RR £85m for initial studies for the SSNR project replacing the Astute class. Coincidence?
For comparison - that £170M is less than the Assessment Phase contract award to BAES for T26 back in 2010 or so. That assessment phase that went so well a four year game of chicken then ensued between MoD and BAES over who was going to pay the additional amount..... |
|
From The Times.
Probably just as political partners - however, there is a possibility…… https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...-out-cmncwvfp6 ….In Canada Justin Trudeau, the prime minister, was facing pressure from election opponents over his country’s exclusion from AUKUS. Trudeau, 49, played down Ottawa’s absence, saying the pact was merely a way for the US to sell nuclear submarines to Australia. “We continue to be strong members of the Five Eyes,” he said of the intelligence alliance between the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. “This is a deal for nuclear submarines, which Canada is not currently or any time soon in the market for. Australia is.” However, senior government officials told The Globe and Mail that Ottawa was not consulted on the pact and had no idea the announcement was coming until just before it was made on Wednesday by the leaders of the three participating countries. “This is another example that Mr Trudeau is not taken seriously by our friends and allies around the world,” said Erin O’Toole, the Conservative leader who is tied in polls with Trudeau as the country prepares to vote in a national election. “Canada is becoming more irrelevant under Mr Trudeau.” O’Toole said he would seek to join the new Indo-Pacific security arrangement, aimed at countering China’s military and political sway in the region, if the Conservatives are elected on Monday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine |
Toys cot….
I saw a tweet saying they were also withdrawing their ambassador to the UK, but no confirmation as yet… https://news.sky.com/story/france-to...-snub-12410788 France to recall ambassadors in US and Australia after AUKUS submarine deal snub France has recalled its ambassadors to the Unites States and Australia in a backlash over a new security partnership. The country's foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian made the announcement following the deal between the UK, US and Australia - which aims to help Australia obtain nuclear-powered submarines. Mr Le Drian said in a statement that the decision, on request from President Emmanuel Macron, "is justified by the exceptional seriousness of the announcements" made by the two countries. He said the cancellation by Australia of a big contract to buy French conventional submarines in favour of nuclear-powered subs built with US technology is "unacceptable behaviour". A White House official has said the US has been in contact with French partners based on the decision to recall their ambassador….. |
"On The Beach". Nevil Shute 1957. Recommended reading.
|
The Times: ‘Like a scene from Le Carré’: how the nuclear submarine pact was No 10’s biggest secret
When the First Sea Lord was invited to a meeting at the Australian high commission in March this year, he had no idea of the magnitude of what was about to unfold. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin — described by colleagues as a “doer” — was asked by Vice-Admiral Michael Noonan, the Australian Chief of Navy, whether the British and Americans could help their ally to build a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. The 12 Barracuda diesel-electric submarines that Australia had agreed to purchase from France five years earlier as part of a £47 billion contract were no longer enough to ward off the threat from China, which was pouring billions of pounds into building the world’s largest navy and fortifying islands outside its territorial waters. They wanted ones that were faster, stealthier and with almost limitless endurance. The key was “surveillance”, according to defence sources familiar with the discussions. “They had carried out a review and the ones they were getting were not fit for purpose. China has a lot of money but is not developed in some areas of capability,” the defence source said. The Australians wanted nuclear-powered submarines to “move quietly, sit outside a port, track movements, keep an eye on undersea cables and follow submarines in a move to curb Chinese reach in the region”, they added. Both Britain and America not only had six decades of experience building up their own sovereign capability but were crucially in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partnership with Australia — unlike France — which meant they might be persuaded to give up their nuclear technology. “That was the first contact. It was a big strategic play. He [Radakin] then came back and handed the whole thing over to [Sir Stephen] Lovegrove,” said a security source referring to the permanent secretary at that time at the Ministry of Defence. The source compared it to a scene out of the fictional John le Carré spy novels. So began Operation Hookless — as it was codenamed inside No 10 —and the most closely guarded secret inside government in years. Only about ten people in Britain were privy to the details, including the prime minister, the foreign secretary and the defence secretary. Lovegrove, who was still the Ministry of Defence’s permanent secretary when handed the proposal, left the department to take on the job of national security adviser, making him even better placed to help carve out the deal of his career. John Bew, Johnson’s foreign policy adviser and the mastermind behind the integrated review that talked of a “tilt” towards the Indo-Pacific region, was also allowed into the fold. Those who were present were “read in”, meaning they had to sign a paper vowing not to let the secret details of the discussions out of the room. After the initial meeting in March, the proposal was put to the Americans. “It took quite a long time to go through the American machine — it had to be discussed at the Pentagon, the state department and the energy department,” the source said. In the weeks that followed, those in the British circle believed there was a “20 per cent chance of it falling apart”. The clock was ticking for the Australians, who warned the British government that there was a looming deadline where the costs for the French deal would quickly rack up and there would be no getting out of it. “The internal dynamics were delicate. It could easily have not come together,” said the security source. Although initial conversations had begun around the submarines, back in No 10 an excited Johnson was keen for something much deeper. “Boris really pushed it. There was a choice about how broad it would be — was it just a technical agreement on a specific subject or is this more broad? Boris was pushing that it had to be as ambitious as possible. This was a strategic move,” a government source who was involved in the discussions said. By the time of the G7 summit in Cornwall in June, the plans were well under way. As the French were occupied with the unfolding so-called “sausage war” over the Brexit divorce deal, Johnson, President Biden and Scott Morrison, the Australian prime minister — referred to as “ScoMo” in No 10 — thrashed out the details of a top-secret pact that would later be known as the “Aukus” defence and security alliance. “There was a lot of noise at G7 about sausages and the EU and there was a lot of excitement around that, and it seemed odd for us that we were doing serious, serious, business in this meeting,” the government source added. Yet they were braced for a backlash not only from China, but also from the French. A source said that Australia’s existing submarine deal with the French had put everyone in a “difficult situation”, adding: “No one had any desire to piss off the French, everyone knew it would be difficult.” Defence sources said that it was “nothing personal”, adding it was about the kit and questioned whether the French — who also have nuclear-powered submarines — would have been willing to share their sovereign capabilities with the Australians. The defence source said that it was different for the British given the fact the Australians were in the Commonwealth. “Once you give that information you cannot get it back. You can only give it to the nations that you will be friends with for ever,” said the defence source, caveating the comment with the fact they said the UK was also extremely close to the French. Although the rise of China was the “first order of concern” for the Australians, government sources said the pact went much deeper than Beijing and was more about the decades going forward and other security issues that could arise. “This matters in three administrations,” they said. After the announcement of the pact this week, Lovegrove described it as “the most significant capability collaboration anywhere in the world in the past decades”. Senior figures in government have compared it to the 1958 mutual defence agreement (MDA) between President Eisenhower and Harold Macmillan, the British prime minister, and the beginning of the “special nuclear relationship” that allows the nations to exchange nuclear materials, technology and information — an agreement which continues today. Given the importance of AUKUS, it is perhaps not surprising that Radakin — the man who brought it in — is rumoured to be one of two likely candidates for the new job as head of the armed forces. |
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-security-nato
The Aukus pact is a sign of a new global order …..The achilles heel of Aukus may not be in security, but in a different area: trade. China is the biggest partner for all its neighbours and is outside only one major trading bloc in the region, the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership. A British Foreign Policy Group report this week, which I co-authored, predicted that a move to join the CPTPP would be part of China’s strategy to improve the regional narrative around itself. The day after Aukus was announced, Beijing declared its formal bid to join the partnership. This is a smart move but also a risky one. The CPTPP demands a range of standards for trade and, crucially, labour, which are certainly weaker than EU rules but still more exacting than those in China itself. Beijing has heft, and may be able to negotiate its own terms more freely than smaller members. But its entry may well include discussions with what seems likely to be the partnership’s newest member in 2022 – the UK, which will be, after Japan, the second biggest economy in this grouping….. |
But to be allowed into CPTPP, China must have unanimous support, and it is unlikely to get the nod from Australia, unless China backs off its aggressive trade bans.
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 11112748)
From The Times.
“This is another example that Mr Trudeau is not taken seriously by our friends and allies around the world,” said Erin O’Toole, the Conservative leader who is tied in polls with Trudeau as the country prepares to vote in a national election. “Canada is becoming more irrelevant under Mr Trudeau.” O’Toole said he would seek to join the new Indo-Pacific security arrangement, aimed at countering China’s military and political sway in the region, if the Conservatives are elected on Monday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine |
Originally Posted by rattman
(Post 11112816)
In defence why would anyone take canada seriously, they probably have one of the worst militaries for thier size of any of the western countries
|
Originally Posted by dead_pan
(Post 11112454)
If you want range and endurance, why not develop an unmanned system? They could also go a lot deeper than a manned sub. Talking of which, I wouldn't be surprised if China has developed such systems and our now contemplating deploying them in international waters off Australia's bases, to pick up and shadow their subs as they leave port.
While I can understand the Oz decision, our role doesn't exactly make sense. As Theresa May noted in Parliament yesterday, would we really contemplate going to war with China over Taiwan or anywhere else within that neck of the woods? It will be able to deploy all sorts of long range UUVs, ROVs - and possibly even tube or silo launched aerial drones that are yet to be developed. It's also a powerful SIGINT asset to augment the South east asian Sosus networks that are already on the ocean floor and tracking local submarine activity - all in the public domain. https://amti.csis.org/indias-underse...-indian-ocean/ and https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/20...se-submarines/ |
Surely the French knew Australia had become completely exasperated with this program in the last couple of years. Most people in Australia were aware. It's been in the media for months. Mr Macron is entitled to withdraw his ambassador if it helps his position in domestic politics. Others may argue but, the last piece of kit we bought from our French friends that was relatively popular would be the Mirage III. From the latest reports, it will be the Virginia Block V and hopefully, straight off the shelf identical to USN specs. The case for a small diesel electric submarine for surveillance in littoral zones is being overtaken by technology. The UUV is making them obsolete.
|
Watch out for a new port to built in Darwin.
|
The lead time is too long for submarines if the strategic situation so dire. Unless we get an early delivery announced after the next election to avoid the previous porkbarelling of the Adelaide shipyards. Expanding the RAAF is by far the fastest option inside five years, perhaps ten?
Australia just dumped an Israeli contract on the basis of security concerns and the French submarines had similar emerging concerns. An utter mess and a commercial con job. AUKUS should be the way forward for major equipment procurement. |
If you have a look at the list of Virginia class boats on order by the USN - I suspect Australia might be waiting a very long time to get it's hands on new boats.
I'm sure the RAN would be drooling at the thought of the Virginia class but $2.8bn versus $2.4bn per unit for the Astute. An extra $1.6bn overall at least for buying American. The Astute is slightly faster submerged - and depending who you believe, has a more capable sonar. If they are going with the US I wonder whether both navies would consider Australia acquiring a few older block one or two boats - and the USN replacing them with more block 4s and 5s. Australia gets a still very capable boat or three early and cuts down on the capability gap, the US replaces them with the latest and greatest. Zut alors - the French really have les merdes with us - French ambassador now referring to `treason in the making.' |
One option that ticks a few box’s is early lease of the decommissioning Los Angela’s class, that have a few more years left in them, with large amount of US crew who want a posting to Perth, so we can start the learning curve, and free up Collins class for refurb for extended life.
I presume US does not have spare Virginia class hulls to sell, nor a lot of spare capacity to increase production rate for an early off the shelf purchase whilst Aust gets it’s act together. It would also keep our crews using US combat system (Raytheon CCS Mk2 (AN/BYG-1)) that RAN are so keen on. So lease of old boats is a way to get foot in door. Somewhat like what India has done with Russian nukes. Have to overcome some RAN resistance to old ships given experience with Kanimbla and Manoora, but RAN will be keen to do anything to facilitate getting their foot in the door of nuclear subs so it becomes real rather than a future proposal that someone can cancel. |
What submarine is being purchased. No one knows.
|
Originally Posted by rjtjrt
(Post 11112856)
One option that ticks a few box’s is early lease of the decommissioning Los Angela’s class, that have a few more years left in them, with large amount of US crew who want a posting to Perth, so we can start the learning curve, and free up Collins class for refurb for extended life.
I presume US does not have spare Virginia class hulls to sell, nor a lot of spare capacity to increase production rate for an early off the shelf purchase whilst Aust gets it’s act together. It would also keep our crews using US combat system (Raytheon CCS Mk2 (AN/BYG-1)) that RAN are so keen on. So lease of old boats is a way to get foot in door. Somewhat like what India has done with Russian nukes. Have to overcome some RAN resistance to old ships given experience with Kanimbla and Manoora, but RAN will be keen to do anything to facilitate getting their foot in the door of nuclear subs so it becomes real rather than a future proposal that someone can cancel. |
...or overhaul, workup, update existing Virginia class boats at Osborne...
|
I'm sure the RAN would be drooling at the thought of the Virginia class but $2.8bn versus $2.4bn per unit for the Astute Report to Congress on Navy SSN(X) Next-Generation Attack Submarine The Navy wants to begin procuring a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), called the Next-Generation Attack Submarine or SSN(X), in FY2031. The SSN(X) would be the successor to the Virginia-class SSN design, which the Navy has been procuring since FY1998….. Since FY2011, Virginia-class SSNs (Figure 1) have been procured at a rate of two boats per year, and a total of 34 have been procured through FY2021. Most Virginia-class boats procured in FY2019 and subsequent years are to be built with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), an additional, 84-foot-long, mid-body section equipped with four large-diameter, vertical launch tubes for storing and launching Tomahawk cruise missiles or other payloads. When procured at a rate of two boats per year, VPM-equipped Virginia-class SSNs have an estimated procurement cost of about $3.4 billion per boat.….. |
Originally Posted by rattman
(Post 11112871)
Have you actually bothered to read anything or watch the press conference ? Part of the deal the subs will be built in australia, specifically at osborne ship yards in adelaide. While we dont know the specifics as they have allocated 12-18 months to determine the design / winners. It believed that the a nuclear power plant will be built which ever countries sub is selected. Will be shipped to australia as a sealed black box where it will be installed onto the sub. The majority of the sub will be built in adelaide with US/UK technical support. I assume the overal program will be managed by electric boat the same way they did with the astute program
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:35. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.