"And for those who are dismissive about Australia’s technical ability , you are ignorant. I worked for DRCS and DSTO back in the 80s and can tell you the research and development capability is substantial."

I don't think anyone disagrees - the problem isn't R&D - it's building them to time and cost . The shipyard in S Australia hasn't a great record on delivery - but that's not just an Australian problem - Canada, Russia & India all struggle. Even the USA and UK have problems - modern warships, like modern combat aircraft, are fiendishly difficult to build

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...submarine-deal

Australia promises jobs to workers stranded by scrapping of French submarine deal

“Each and every” skilled shipbuilding worker affected by the federal government’s decision to scrap the existing $90bn submarine project and switch to nuclear-powered boats will have a job in the future, defence industry minister Melissa Price says.

As ongoing controversies surround the plan, Price will tell a major submarine conference in Adelaide on Tuesday that the submarines will be built in South Australia……

Defence officials told senate estimates in October that the future of up to 600 construction jobs was uncertain after the government scrapped the existing project. Another 560 people are employed directly on the existing project.

Many companies had invested in resources to become part of the supply chain for the submarines that were being bought from France’s Naval Group.

In a pre-recorded message Price said she understood the uncertainty the decision had created. She said small and medium businesses affected would be supported to compete for future work across defence programs, and that individual workers would find new jobs through a sovereign shipbuilding talent pool.

Workers will be redeployed to other projects, such as maintenance of and upgrades to the Collins-class submarines, or placed with overseas shipbuilders or governments. Others will have the opportunity to get new skills, or train in nuclear power.

“We have a solid commitment to find a role within that pool for each and every skilled shipbuilding worker affected by this announcement,” Price said.

“We will be building nuclear-powered submarines in South Australia.”….

Best go and ask the garlic munchers in Mali why they are dependent on the C17 and Chinooks from the other middle power, even if they do rent their missiles.

No opportunity to knock the UK missed eh, Asturius!

Well MGD - they are putting infantry on the ground in a former colony..............

A spectacular misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the actual state of affairs.

Infantry extensively supported by the UK - including with BotG.

Pretty pointless trying to sub-divide contributions in joint operations. The French are leading in Mali with UK and other support, the UK leads in other areas with allied support

remember that the UK was dependent for several years on NATO to provide marine recce - which a lot of people (including me) found unbelievable for a maritime nation.

That's the point of alliances - and we shouldn't resort to simple nationalistic point scoring if we want them to continue.

The alternative is a vast increase in spending (which won't happen) or a big cut in what we can do (which I think would be unwise)

Given your previous, quite obvious, "nationalistic point scoring" you'll excuse me if I find your attempt to now appear the voice of reason not just a little laughable.

If you would all like to engage in a discussion about the operations in Mali, and the air support pertaining to said operations, please begin a new thread on that and I'll move the posts over to that thread.
(It is certainly on topic for Military Aviation)

Please do not bloat the AUKUS/Submarine thread with that off-topic (for this thread) discussion.
Thanks in advance.

Forbes op/ed advocating for Australia to learn the ropes of nuke boat ops with retiring Los Angeles class submarines.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craigho...h=22c455d44a6b

Probably one of the best and a well thought out articles on the nuclear submarine deal

https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-...e-the-options/

Excellent article rattman.

Looking more like strategic overreach every day.

Why does the RAN think it needs the capability to patrol as far away as the Bering Strait and engage the Chinese in their home waters ?
Surely the main game is defending the approaches to Australia and the Sunda and Malacca straits.
Why dissipate a limited capability with strategic overreach and mission creep ?
The Yanks and maybe the Japanese are the only ones who need the capability to engage the Chinese in the South China Sea.
Why are we even thinking about it ?

Wonder if the option just to buy some dosans off SK while we wait. They are knocked the first out in 2 1/2 years laid down to launch then another 2-3 to commission . Collin life extension is 6 billion for 6 subs, dosans are about a 1billion USD. Sure costs more but you got a new sub and 6 VLS tubes. SK builds 2 in korea to get them to us ASAP, we build the next 4 locally and use the window to start to get our a manpower to speed. By the time we had finished theres an active plan ready for what ever nuclear

How far from Australian shores should a submarine have to go to defend the approaches to the homeland in your opinion? Safe to say they’d have to stay there for a period of time.

During the Cold War having the ability to patrol the North Pacific (ie The Soviet Union) made perfect sense.
But the Cold War is over.
Deploying an Attack class nuclear submarine in the South China Sea is something totally different. It is either area denial , which comes close to an act of war, or it is to interdict Chinese submarines to prevent a second strike from their SLBMs.
Hard to see how either are within the scope of Australia’s strategic interests.
We are not a global power seeking to project power.
Taking on China as if we are is a big mistake.
Looks to me like a potential cluster f……

The areas you mentioned (straights, approaches to Oz) are still a fair distance from your shores. The time on station in these areas is significantly less for a conventionally powered submarine compared to a nuclear one. Towards the beginning of the thread, there’s a link that compares time on station vs distance from Australia. Can’t speak to the accuracy of it, but if it’s even close, the differences are significant.

You don’t have to sail within sight of China to yield benefits of operating a nuclear submarine.

The biggest disadvantages of conventional submarines are the “ indiscretion rate “ and speed. The Collins class cant keep up with a US Carrier Group for example.
But they have more than enough endurance for home waters defence.
Still reckon the Virginia Class is way too much submarine.
I will be surprised if it ever happens.
Should have just gone with the Soryu class with an American TCC system.

Well, I’ll leave it by acknowledging someone in charge in Australia sees the value nuke boats add.

Reading that Hennessy book that an earlier poster mentioned.
Fascinating - can highly recommend it - crikey - the risks that British submariners took in the 50s sailing up to Nova Zemlya etc.
And Rickover sounds like a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work.
The battle by the Brits to get the US to hand over the reactor technology places the significance of the AUKUS announcement in correct context.
It really is a huge deal for the Americans to agree to hand over the technology to anyone else.