Whatever you do, don't change anything - CASA Multicom
Sorry but what has this got to do with anything? If you'd like to go into the technical and tactical reasons for Australia's preference for diesel subs I'm happy to discuss them with you, but it's of zero relevance to this discussion.
The problem is not diesel subs, per se. The problem is being silly enough to ask for nuclear subs to be converted to diesel.
It’s like asking Boeing to fit radial piston engines and propellers to Jumbo jets. Boeing will do it, for a price. A very expensive price. And the outcome would be Frankenstein’s monster.
The few submariners Australia can assemble to man them will be easy prey to predator unmanned submersibles.
It’s like asking Boeing to fit radial piston engines and propellers to Jumbo jets. Boeing will do it, for a price. A very expensive price. And the outcome would be Frankenstein’s monster.
The few submariners Australia can assemble to man them will be easy prey to predator unmanned submersibles.
The core reason is really simple, nuclear power in any form cannot be discussed, it is so non-PC.
We even have lunatic legislation to that end in the Cth and some states.
Can't upset the Loony Left and the Greens --- nobody ever told them sunlight is nuclear radiation.
Are you seriously suggesting that, given the vast distances the RAN has to travel, that diesel is either technically or tactically (or both) superior to nuclear powered subs??
Thread drift, I know, but the mind boggles at such a suggestion.
Tootle pip!!
If you'd like to go into the technical and tactical reasons for Australia's preference for diesel subs I'm happy to discuss them with you,
Are you seriously suggesting that, given the vast distances the RAN has to travel, that diesel is either technically or tactically (or both) superior to nuclear powered subs??
I would love you to start a thread on that JUNIOR.VH-LFA, perhaps the mods would allow the latitude. The mind boggles at Australian exceptionalism.
Australian exceptionalism is Dick’s point. And that’s why discussing converting nuclear subs into diesel subs is not thread drift in a discussion about Australian airspace arrangements. (Not suggesting you were saying it was thread drift, I2.)
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,966
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
Getting back to the subject, sort of....; Only today I was doing a bit of Glider towing again and at one stage I heard an aircraft call up in the circuit area of an airfield about 50 or so km to the East.
He made two inbound calls, one at 20nm and the second at 10nm. He then called overhead, and after making his mind up on which runway to use, downwind on that runway.
He then also made turning base and when established on finals.
I will make no further comment.
He made two inbound calls, one at 20nm and the second at 10nm. He then called overhead, and after making his mind up on which runway to use, downwind on that runway.
He then also made turning base and when established on finals.
I will make no further comment.
You should have acknowledged each of those calls ...
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,966
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
Nahh sorry, Lead Balloon. I was too busy concentrating on looking around my intended flightpath for any Gliders I had previously launched, and also considering where to take the Glider I was towing to ensure that it was within safe Gliding distance of the airfield if no thermals were around.
Much too busy to talk to some clown at an airfield over 50km away! (Where the only other traffic for the whole day was one RFDS PC12.) Well, that's all I heard!
Much too busy to talk to some clown at an airfield over 50km away! (Where the only other traffic for the whole day was one RFDS PC12.) Well, that's all I heard!
Looking out? Are you mad?
Talk more on the radio. You’ll be ‘safer’.
Talk more on the radio. You’ll be ‘safer’.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,966
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
Are you mad?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Junior VH-LFA,
The core reason is really simple, nuclear power in any form cannot be discussed, it is so non-PC.
We even have lunatic legislation to that end in the Cth and some states.
Can't upset the Loony Left and the Greens --- nobody ever told them sunlight is nuclear radiation.
Are you seriously suggesting that, given the vast distances the RAN has to travel, that diesel is either technically or tactically (or both) superior to nuclear powered subs??
Thread drift, I know, but the mind boggles at such a suggestion.
Tootle pip!!
The core reason is really simple, nuclear power in any form cannot be discussed, it is so non-PC.
We even have lunatic legislation to that end in the Cth and some states.
Can't upset the Loony Left and the Greens --- nobody ever told them sunlight is nuclear radiation.
Are you seriously suggesting that, given the vast distances the RAN has to travel, that diesel is either technically or tactically (or both) superior to nuclear powered subs??
Thread drift, I know, but the mind boggles at such a suggestion.
Tootle pip!!
Not withstanding this countries irrational fear of nuclear power, which is absolute and it's beyond ridiculous that we don't use nuclear energy, there are a variety of tactical and strategic reasons for Australia's preference for Diesel power submarines, not least of which is the vessel's increased ability to avoid detection. Our submarines are not nuclear armed, they are not a deterrent. They exist to support the fleet, with particular reference to intelligence gathering.
Here's an interesting article worth your persual:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...y-battle-25639
Even news.com.au is fielding this:
https://www.news.com.au/technology/i...06b5bf3aa212b0
I'm sure they Navy would like a combination of both types, but given the role our force finds itself employed in, no one within the RAN wants or is chasing Nuclear submarines at the expense of SSK's. The additional cost, the lack of support facilities, the noise, the inability to perform well in the RAN's core tasks all make them unsuitable for purpose.
As for why the French design was chosen etc, that I can't really help you with. I suspect much of it has to do with having them built here. I am happy to concede that it will probably be an expensive disaster that will rival Collins. No doubt the guys in the fleet will make it work over time, but not without some substantial cost blow outs. Like many Defence acquisitions, operational capability and cost are usually the last thing anyone thinks about, it's usually about "jobs and growth." The RAAF seemingly has learnt the lesson, Growler, P-8, JSF and C-17 have all been good examples of how it should be done. But to say there's no leadership involved just isn't accurate; there very clearly is. It's just bad leadership, aimed at holding office, not achieving outcomes.
Last edited by junior.VH-LFA; 27th Oct 2018 at 23:44.
126.7
And while we are on shipping matters, anything that floats these days is a moving target imho.
Long range, surface hugging ,supersonic anti ship missiles will make like on the ocean wave jolly exciting.!
The Australian mentality that we cant do things really hasnt changed since WW1.
For the War effort ...,we can build aircraft..oh no we cant we'll by them from the Mother country..
Same goes for nuke subs ...piss weak excuse from some polly waffler the other day...we dont have people with the training and expertise to run a nuclear job. Hullo...there's a decade from whoa to go the get the expertise up and running here. IF that is the case, which I suspect it is not.
In remote Alaska and etc these days, not in Oz of course, container sized stations power the mine.
We sure live in a 'Fantasy' land.
Big heaps of coal for cheap power. Cant use it here tho, but can flog it off to others to use.
Big heaps of Uranium for cheap power and etc. Cant use it here, but can flog it off for others to use.
Maybe we''ll get some sent back one day on the front end of a rocket.
And while we are on shipping matters, anything that floats these days is a moving target imho.
Long range, surface hugging ,supersonic anti ship missiles will make like on the ocean wave jolly exciting.!
The Australian mentality that we cant do things really hasnt changed since WW1.
For the War effort ...,we can build aircraft..oh no we cant we'll by them from the Mother country..
Same goes for nuke subs ...piss weak excuse from some polly waffler the other day...we dont have people with the training and expertise to run a nuclear job. Hullo...there's a decade from whoa to go the get the expertise up and running here. IF that is the case, which I suspect it is not.
In remote Alaska and etc these days, not in Oz of course, container sized stations power the mine.
We sure live in a 'Fantasy' land.
Big heaps of coal for cheap power. Cant use it here tho, but can flog it off to others to use.
Big heaps of Uranium for cheap power and etc. Cant use it here, but can flog it off for others to use.
Maybe we''ll get some sent back one day on the front end of a rocket.
the most important defence acquisition criteria is how many overseas postings it will generate and where. I hear France has some beautiful locations, likewise USA. Who wants to be posted to Bankstown or Footscray?
Now if our defence manufacturing capabilities were in Noosa, Margaret River or portsea we might have a chance.....
Now if our defence manufacturing capabilities were in Noosa, Margaret River or portsea we might have a chance.....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, can’t resist...
It isn’t.
It’s energy source is nuclear fusion, but (with the exception of solar flares), the sun does not emit gamma (nuclear) radiation. It emits electomagnetic radiation at many frequencies including visible light, but nuclear radiation is not one of them.
It isn’t.
It’s energy source is nuclear fusion, but (with the exception of solar flares), the sun does not emit gamma (nuclear) radiation. It emits electomagnetic radiation at many frequencies including visible light, but nuclear radiation is not one of them.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that you're find many (read any) mines or other remote facilities in Alaska powered by nuclear reactors. A while back (decades ago) the US military had used so called "Atomic Batteries" to power some remote electronic equipment like radio repeaters.. I suppose technically, they were "reactors", but they were relatively small devices. If any of those remain, they are relatively rare. But a shipping container sized nuclear reactor able to power a remote mine? I think that you have been misled.
Sorry, can’t resist...
It isn’t.
It’s energy source is nuclear fusion, but (with the exception of solar flares), the sun does not emit gamma (nuclear) radiation. It emits electomagnetic radiation at many frequencies including visible light, but nuclear radiation is not one of them.
The whole point of the quip is that, in generic terms, virtually all like on earth depends on the great nuclear furnace in the sky.
I don't want to prolong this thread drift, but some would take issue with you that "nuclear radiation" is just gamma radiation.
Tootle pip!!